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.

66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from tax and assessee was consciously aware

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.

66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from tax and assessee was consciously aware

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.

66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether where land sold by assessee was held to be non-agricultural land, and, thus, was not exempt from tax and assessee was consciously aware

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

66,69,14,229/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice dated 25/03/2013 u/s.274 of the Act. Penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance as the assessee had preferred appeal against the quantum assessment order before the CIT(A)-2, Vadodara and further appeal before ITAT. After disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal

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

66,69,14,229/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice dated 25/03/2013 u/s.274 of the Act. Penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance as the assessee had preferred appeal against the quantum assessment order before the CIT(A)-2, Vadodara and further appeal before ITAT. After disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal

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

66,69,14,229/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice dated 25/03/2013u/s.274 of the Act. Penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance as the assessee had preferred appeal against the quantum assessment order before the CIT(A)-2, Vadodara and further appeal before ITAT. After disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal

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)

section 14A was squarely covered by Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178/283 Taxman 178/438 ITR 1/ [2021] 10 SCC 153 wherein it was held that since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax-free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds

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)

section 14A was squarely covered by Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178/283 Taxman 178/438 ITR 1/ [2021] 10 SCC 153 wherein it was held that since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax-free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds

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)

section 14A was squarely covered by Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178/283 Taxman 178/438 ITR 1/ [2021] 10 SCC 153 wherein it was held that since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax-free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds

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)

section 14A was squarely covered by Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178/283 Taxman 178/438 ITR 1/ [2021] 10 SCC 153 wherein it was held that since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax-free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 66. An identical grievance also came up for our adjudication in the assessment year 2004-05 earlier in this consolidated order. We have upheld the plea of the assessee and observed as follows: 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 66. An identical grievance also came up for our adjudication in the assessment year 2004-05 earlier in this consolidated order. We have upheld the plea of the assessee and observed as follows: 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 66. An identical grievance also came up for our adjudication in the assessment year 2004-05 earlier in this consolidated order. We have upheld the plea of the assessee and observed as follows: 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 66. An identical grievance also came up for our adjudication in the assessment year 2004-05 earlier in this consolidated order. We have upheld the plea of the assessee and observed as follows: 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 66. An identical grievance also came up for our adjudication in the assessment year 2004-05 earlier in this consolidated order. We have upheld the plea of the assessee and observed as follows: 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) were not complied by the appellant. 66. An identical grievance also came up for our adjudication in the assessment year 2004-05 earlier in this consolidated order. We have upheld the plea of the assessee and observed as follows: 12. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, the relevant material facts are like

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.-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