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

7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that

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

7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that

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

7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that

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

7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that

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

7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that

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

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

Section 271(1) of the Act. 3.4 The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO without appreciating that: .1 The addition made to the transfer price by adopting a diverse method (Profit split method) as against the one adopted by the Appellant (Transactional Net Margin Method) resulted due to difference of opinion

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

Section 271(1) of the Act. 3.4 The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO without appreciating that: .1 The addition made to the transfer price by adopting a diverse method (Profit split method) as against the one adopted by the Appellant (Transactional Net Margin Method) resulted due to difference of opinion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

94,83,384/- -do- 2015-16 23-09-2022 5,93,72,149/- -do- I.T.A Nos. 317 to 324/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2019-20 Page No 4 Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

94,83,384/- -do- 2015-16 23-09-2022 5,93,72,149/- -do- I.T.A Nos. 317 to 324/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2019-20 Page No 4 Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

94,83,384/- -do- 2015-16 23-09-2022 5,93,72,149/- -do- I.T.A Nos. 317 to 324/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2019-20 Page No 4 Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

94,83,384/- -do- 2015-16 23-09-2022 5,93,72,149/- -do- I.T.A Nos. 317 to 324/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2019-20 Page No 4 Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

94,83,384/- -do- 2015-16 23-09-2022 5,93,72,149/- -do- I.T.A Nos. 317 to 324/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2019-20 Page No 4 Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

SHRI ASHISHBHAI NATWARLAL SOPARKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 517/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-17 Shri Ashishbhai Natwarlal Soparkar, A.C.I.T., Lane 13, Bunglow No.246, Vs. Circle-3(3), Satyagrah Chhavni, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be attracted. 8.2 Moving further, as per explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act the addition or disallowances in computation income by the AO deemed concealment of income subject to condition provided therein. Under the explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 10. Aggrieved against the appellate orders, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: (i) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty levied on the issue of revenue receipts not offered for taxation after holding that

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 10. Aggrieved against the appellate orders, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: (i) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty levied on the issue of revenue receipts not offered for taxation after holding that

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 10. Aggrieved against the appellate orders, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: (i) Whether in the facts and in the law the Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty levied on the issue of revenue receipts not offered for taxation after holding that