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

9(2)/111/10-11 A.Y. 2003-04 , the ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee had made infringement of section 269SS of the Act as well as section 269T of the Act which calls for levy of penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) while disposing of quantum appeal for A.Y. 2003-04 vide order dated

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

9(2)/111/10-11 A.Y. 2003-04 , the ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee had made infringement of section 269SS of the Act as well as section 269T of the Act which calls for levy of penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) while disposing of quantum appeal for A.Y. 2003-04 vide order dated

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

9(2)/111/10-11 A.Y. 2003-04 , the ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee had made infringement of section 269SS of the Act as well as section 269T of the Act which calls for levy of penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) while disposing of quantum appeal for A.Y. 2003-04 vide order dated

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

9(2)/111/10-11 A.Y. 2003-04 , the ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee had made infringement of section 269SS of the Act as well as section 269T of the Act which calls for levy of penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) while disposing of quantum appeal for A.Y. 2003-04 vide order dated

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

9(2)/111/10-11 A.Y. 2003-04 , the ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee had made infringement of section 269SS of the Act as well as section 269T of the Act which calls for levy of penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) while disposing of quantum appeal for A.Y. 2003-04 vide order dated

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 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

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 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

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 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. This view gets support from the ratio laid down in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Hence the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer on this account is directed to be deleted and appellant succeeds in respect of Ground No. 10." 8.1. In view of above facts, the penalty levied

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. This view gets support from the ratio laid down in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Hence the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer on this account is directed to be deleted and appellant succeeds in respect of Ground No. 10." 8.1. In view of above facts, the penalty levied

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 31.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed sale consideration on Block No. 325 of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on account of undisclosed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 31.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed sale consideration on Block No. 325 of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on account of undisclosed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 31.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed sale consideration on Block No. 325 of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on account of undisclosed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 31.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed sale consideration on Block No. 325 of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on account of undisclosed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 31.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged undisclosed sale consideration on Block No. 325 of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- on account of undisclosed