Harshawardhan M. Gajbhiye

SAT-appeal

• Same violation as WTM proceedings; AO charges virtually identical to WTM charges (specific violation not restated in this order).
  AO penalty order quashed · All appeals allowed
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 434, 558, 572, 573, 574, 575 of 2019 allowed on 26.02.2020; AO order quashed and remanded
• Same violation as WTM order; AO charges/findings virtually identical to WTM charges already partly set aside by SAT
  AO penalty order dated 30.10.2019 quashed · All appeals allowed and remitted to AO to decide afresh in light of SAT order dated 10.10.2019
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 434, 558, 572, 573, 574, 575 of 2019 with Misc. Applications 527, 598, 618-621 of 2019 allowed on 26.02.2020; AO order quashed and remanded
• Same violation as WTM proceedings; AO charges and findings virtually identical to WTM order, already partly set aside by SAT (specific violation not restated).
  All appeals allowed; AO penalty order quashed and not sustained · Matters remitted to AO to decide afresh per SAT order dated 10.10.2019
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 434, 558, 572, 573, 574, 575 of 2019 allowed on 26.02.2020; AO order quashed and remanded
• Same violations as in WTM order; AO levied penalty on identical charges/findings, partly set aside by SAT on 10.10.2019.
  All appeals allowed; AO penalty order dated 30.10.2019 quashed · Matters remitted to AO to decide afresh in light of SAT order dated 10.10.2019
  Appeal: Appeal Nos. 434, 558, 572, 573, 574, 575 of 2019 allowed and remanded by SAT order dated 26.02.2020