SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

8. Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked while levying penalty in relation to the transfer pricing adjustment, when the said Explanation was neither referred in the notice issued under section 271(l)(c) of the Act nor relied upon at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under

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

8. Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked while levying penalty in relation to the transfer pricing adjustment, when the said Explanation was neither referred in the notice issued under section 271(l)(c) of the Act nor relied upon at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under

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

8. Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked while levying penalty in relation to the transfer pricing adjustment, when the said Explanation was neither referred in the notice issued under section 271(l)(c) of the Act nor relied upon at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under

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

8. Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked while levying penalty in relation to the transfer pricing adjustment, when the said Explanation was neither referred in the notice issued under section 271(l)(c) of the Act nor relied upon at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under

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

8. Ground No. 3.2 pertains to imposition of penalty on disallowance of repairing expenses at Rs.8,64,686/- treating them as capital expenditure on which penalty has been imposed. The Assessing Officer was disallowance of revenue expenses of Rs.22,28,938/- which were considered as capital expenditure and penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) had also been initiated

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

8. Ground No. 3.2 pertains to imposition of penalty on disallowance of repairing expenses at Rs.8,64,686/- treating them as capital expenditure on which penalty has been imposed. The Assessing Officer was disallowance of revenue expenses of Rs.22,28,938/- which were considered as capital expenditure and penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) had also been initiated

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.

u/s. 153A/seized documents related to appellant. Therefore, it is clearly seen that the facts of the case of appellant is similar to the facts in the case of Bharatkumar G. Rajani. Thus, the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharatkumar G. Rajani v. DCIT [2013] 40 Taxmann.com 344 (Gujarat) is also clearly applicable

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.

u/s. 153A/seized documents related to appellant. Therefore, it is clearly seen that the facts of the case of appellant is similar to the facts in the case of Bharatkumar G. Rajani. Thus, the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharatkumar G. Rajani v. DCIT [2013] 40 Taxmann.com 344 (Gujarat) is also clearly applicable

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.

u/s. 153A/seized documents related to appellant. Therefore, it is clearly seen that the facts of the case of appellant is similar to the facts in the case of Bharatkumar G. Rajani. Thus, the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharatkumar G. Rajani v. DCIT [2013] 40 Taxmann.com 344 (Gujarat) is also clearly applicable

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

8. The scheme of Section, which governs penalty on undisclosed income for the 'specified previous year', is like this. In the cases in which search is initiated, the penalty under section 271AAA will come into play in respect of 'undisclosed income' of 'specified previous year', and, to that extent, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) will not be applicable

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

8. The scheme of Section, which governs penalty on undisclosed income for the 'specified previous year', is like this. In the cases in which search is initiated, the penalty under section 271AAA will come into play in respect of 'undisclosed income' of 'specified previous year', and, to that extent, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) will not be applicable

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

8. The scheme of Section, which governs penalty on undisclosed income for the 'specified previous year', is like this. In the cases in which search is initiated, the penalty under section 271AAA will come into play in respect of 'undisclosed income' of 'specified previous year', and, to that extent, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) will not be applicable

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

8. The scheme of Section, which governs penalty on undisclosed income for the 'specified previous year', is like this. In the cases in which search is initiated, the penalty under section 271AAA will come into play in respect of 'undisclosed income' of 'specified previous year', and, to that extent, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) will not be applicable

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

8. The scheme of Section, which governs penalty on undisclosed income for the 'specified previous year', is like this. In the cases in which search is initiated, the penalty under section 271AAA will come into play in respect of 'undisclosed income' of 'specified previous year', and, to that extent, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) will not be applicable