DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

u/s 14A?\n\n2 The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.8,64,686/- on account of repairing expenses.\n\n3. The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty on the issue of addition of Rs.94,71,966/- in total income as per provisions

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) had also been initiated in the assessment order. The assessing officer stated that during the survey proceedings u/s. 133A which was conducted on the assessee as well as on SPI on 14.07.2006, the appellant had made disclosure with respect to addition of provision of doubtful debts and advance of Rs.94,71,966/- in working

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the income offered by revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act and levied the penalty

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the income offered by revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act and levied the penalty

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the income offered by revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act and levied the penalty

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

ANISHA R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 3,71,721/- on account of unexplained cash credit under section