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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the brother

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

39 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT change. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992] 193 ITR 49 (Ker), while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

39 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT change. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992] 193 ITR 49 (Ker), while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

39 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT change. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992] 193 ITR 49 (Ker), while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

39 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT change. The Explanation as introduced in 1983 was construed by the Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.R. Patton [(1992] 193 ITR 49 (Ker), while following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets