CIT v. Anwar Ali

RUCHIT DINESHBHAI DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

…himself has disclosed all the details. To support such submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. Vs CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642, CIT Vs Jalaram Oil Mills (2002) 253 ITR 192 (Guj), Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 1 (Bom). 7. On the other, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order in para 12 of his order clearly recorded that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) o…

RAMILABEN KALUBHAI KAKADIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Ramilaben Kalubhai Kakadia, I.T.O., 62, Mira Nagar, Bhat Ni Wadi, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Varachha Road, Surat-395008. Surat. Pan No. Aippk 2934 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

…of detailed written submissions were not disproved by the lower authorities. To support his all the submissions the Ld. CIT(A) A.R for the assessee relied on the following decisions;  Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 656 Ker)’  Jalaram Oil Mill (253 ITR 192 Guj),  Baroda Tin Works (221 ITR 661 Guj). 7. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that all the pleas which have been raised by the ld. AR of the assessee before the Tribunal was considered by the ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal of 6 Ramilaben Kalubhai Kakadia Vs ITO assessee. The assessee while filing return of incom…

CHIMANBHAI A. KANTESARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Income Tax Officer A-54, Trikam Nagar Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Aaykar Vs Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, 395006 Surat-395001 Pan : Abepp 7380 D Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

…sing Officer. To support his contention, Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT (1981) 249 5 Sh.Chimanbhai A Kantesaria ITR 125 (Guj) and CIT vs. Jalaram Oil Mills (2001) 253 ITR 192 (Guj). Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that though no appeal is filed in quantum assessment by assessee. However, it is settled legal position that penalty proceedings and assessment are separate proceedings, though finding of the assessment order may be relevant but cannot be conclusive for levy of penalty. To support his contention, Ld.…

M/S SATKAR INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,ANJAD DISTT BARWANI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE , KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

…1,CIT V. Gem Granites 86 CCH 0160, ACIT Vs Maloo Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 14 ITJ 398 (ITAT Nagpur), CIT Vs Rajeev Garg and others (2009) 224 CTR 321 (Punjab and Hariyana), CIT Vs Suresh Chand Mittal (2000) 241 ITR 124 (M.P), CIT Vs Jalaram Oil Mills (2002) 253 ITR 192 and CIT Vs. Metachem Industries ltd. (2007) ITJ 310 (M.P). 4.That, Ld. CIT (A)-II erred to confirm the penalty levied by Ld. AO. U / s 271(1)(c), more particularly when appellant submitted total ware bouts of the unsecured lender relating to the identity, genuineness & creditworthiness, just to avoid litigation and under a bona fide belief that p…

SHRI JERAMBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI THESIA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1574/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Jerambhai Parsottambhai V The Deputy Commissioner Thesia, A-17, Vithal Nagar, S Of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat. Hirabaug, Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aampt 5791 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R.Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

…but not disproved by assessing officer, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be imposed. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on jurisdictional Gujarat High Court decision in case of National Textiles v. CIT (24? ITR 125) and CIT v. Jalaram Oil Mills (253 ITR 192) (Guj). It may therefore, kindly be appreciated that explanation furnished by assessee is very much bona fide and the same is not proved to be false by assessing officer. Now merely because addition is made to the income of Shri Jerambhai Parsottambhai Thesia Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Surat/ITA No.1574/AHD/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 Page 4 of 8 assessee…

SHRI HASMUKH KESHAVLAL KESARIA-HUF,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meena

…Hasmukh Keshavlal Kesaria/I.T.A.No. 752/RJT/2014/A.Y. 97-98 Page 1 of 6 INCOM TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-RAJKOT-BENCH-RAJKOT BEFORE C .M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND O. P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No. 752/RJT/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98 Appellant V. Respondent Hasmukh Keshavlal Kesaria, Income Tax Officer, HUF C/o D R Adhia , Om Shri Ward- 2(1) Rajkot Padmalaya Beside Trikamji 16, Jagnath Plot Dr. Yagnik Road Rajkot PAN:AABHK6682H Assessee by Written submissions Revenue by Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 27.11.2018 Date of pronouncement 28.11.2018 ORDER PER O. P. MEENA, AM 1. This appeal filed b…

SARAS PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,VALSAD vs. THE DY.CIT, VALSAD CIRCLE,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.689/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2007-08 Saras Plywood Products Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.744, New G.I.D.C, Valsad Circle, Valsad. Gundlav, Valsad. Pan: Aahcs 8945G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…which two views are possible and revenue authorities have expressed two view of same set of addition. The learned counsel for the assessee also placed reliance in the case of National Textile v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj) and CIT v. Jalaram Oil Mills [2002] 253 ITR 192 (Guj). Therefore, it has been claimed that the assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the income. Besides, the learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the additions on which penalty has been levied has been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad in Tax Appeal No.146/2013 dated…