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

269T. 271E. (1) ……. (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. In the said sections, the Legislature has clearly provided that only the joint Commissioner is empowered to levy penalty. The Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the case of CIT v Aquatic Remedies 406 ITR 545 (Bom), wherein

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

269T. 271E. (1) ……. (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. In the said sections, the Legislature has clearly provided that only the joint Commissioner is empowered to levy penalty. The Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the case of CIT v Aquatic Remedies 406 ITR 545 (Bom), wherein

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

269T. 271E. (1) ……. (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. In the said sections, the Legislature has clearly provided that only the joint Commissioner is empowered to levy penalty. The Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the case of CIT v Aquatic Remedies 406 ITR 545 (Bom), wherein

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

269T. 271E. (1) ……. (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. In the said sections, the Legislature has clearly provided that only the joint Commissioner is empowered to levy penalty. The Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the case of CIT v Aquatic Remedies 406 ITR 545 (Bom), wherein

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

269T. 271E. (1) ……. (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. In the said sections, the Legislature has clearly provided that only the joint Commissioner is empowered to levy penalty. The Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the case of CIT v Aquatic Remedies 406 ITR 545 (Bom), wherein

M/S. APPLE WEIGHINFRA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad) [Through Virtual Court]

68, question of treating it as transaction in violation of section 269SS or section 269T did not arise

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. REKHA INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 269T. 2. It was also found that out of remaining amount Rs. 45,00,000/- and Rs. 27,00,000/- were paid by Shri Dennis Indravadan Chokshi and Smt Taraben Jagjivandas Chokshi respectively who are son and mother of the Indravadan J Chokshi. I.T.A Nos. 270 & 287/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 9 Rekhaben INdravadan Chokshi vs. ITO 3. Further

REKHABEN INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 269T. 2. It was also found that out of remaining amount Rs. 45,00,000/- and Rs. 27,00,000/- were paid by Shri Dennis Indravadan Chokshi and Smt Taraben Jagjivandas Chokshi respectively who are son and mother of the Indravadan J Chokshi. I.T.A Nos. 270 & 287/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 9 Rekhaben INdravadan Chokshi vs. ITO 3. Further

SHRI VISHAL MOHANLAL TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

68 of the Act in the order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3)of the Act. Thus, the cash transaction was being done due to business exigency and extreme need of cash and was between family members i.e. individual to HUF. Thus, penalty under section 271D was not leviable as there was no contravention

SHRI MOHANLAL SAVJIBHAI TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

68 of the Act in the order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3)of the Act. Thus, the cash transaction was being done due to business exigency and extreme need of cash and was between family members i.e. individual to HUF. Thus, penalty under section 271D was not leviable as there was no contravention

SHRI MOHANLAL SAVJIBHAI TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

68 of the Act in the order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3)of the Act. Thus, the cash transaction was being done due to business exigency and extreme need of cash and was between family members i.e. individual to HUF. Thus, penalty under section 271D was not leviable as there was no contravention

SHRI VISHAL MOHANLAL TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

68 of the Act in the order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3)of the Act. Thus, the cash transaction was being done due to business exigency and extreme need of cash and was between family members i.e. individual to HUF. Thus, penalty under section 271D was not leviable as there was no contravention