SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS 47,025/- ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on above additions / disallowances for concealment of income and issued notices u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act on 13.02.2017. 5. During the penalty proceedings, the assessing officer held that

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted to cases where the income of an assessee is assessed on estimate basis and additions are made therein. When the additions have been made on the basis of estimate and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, then the penalty is not leviable." 12. It may be useful

SANSKRUTI MEGA STRUCTURE PVT. LIMITED,SURAT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(2), 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) Sanskruti Mega Structure Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Vs 203, Mnirman Bhavan, Tax, Central Circle- Majura Gate, Surat. 2(1)(2), Surat. Pan : Aamcs 5055 Q Applicant Respondent

TDS. Therefore, the assessee suo moto offered the amount for taxation. No other addition except the suo moto income offered by assessee was made in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 15.12.2016. The AO vide his separate order dated 25.07.2016, levied penalty under section 271

AKSHAR GEMS,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) Akshar Gems, Assistant Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Shreeji Diamond Apartment, Vs. Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Nandu Doshi Ni Wadi, Vastadevdi Road, Aaykar Bhavan Nr.Majura Katargam, Surat – 395004 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarfa3697A Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

section 271-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 28.06.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as law on the subject, the Learned Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat erred

SHRI BHARATKUMAR T. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, Ground No.1 of appeal is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming levy of penalty of Rs.6,18,760/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The appellant reserves right to add, alter and withdraw of any grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS), has been deleted by the Tribunal, in respect of ITA Nos. 1661/Ahd/2017, 1662/Ahd/2017, 1664/Ahd/2017 and 2113/Ahd/2013. Since the penalty levied on State Bank of India (employer) in respect of the same LTC has been deleted by the Tribunal, therefore in the hands of the assessee, the penalty under section 271

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(c) @100% of tax sought to be evaded. The Assessing Officer also added the interest income of Rs. 10,90,550/- on deposit with State Bank of India, such income was not disclosed in the computation of income. The assessing officer added such interest income in the assessment order and also levied penalty @100% of tax sought

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(c) @100% of tax sought to be evaded. The Assessing Officer also added the interest income of Rs. 10,90,550/- on deposit with State Bank of India, such income was not disclosed in the computation of income. The assessing officer added such interest income in the assessment order and also levied penalty @100% of tax sought

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(c) @100% of tax sought to be evaded. The Assessing Officer also added the interest income of Rs. 10,90,550/- on deposit with State Bank of India, such income was not disclosed in the computation of income. The assessing officer added such interest income in the assessment order and also levied penalty @100% of tax sought

SMT. URVASHI SANJAYKUMAR GUPTA,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainismt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta, I.T.O., Ratna Vihar Apartment, New City Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Light, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Aanpg 4855 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submissions of learned authorised representative (AR) of the assessee and the learned departmental representative (DR) of the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that no concealment was detected nor any show cause notice

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S J.K. Paper Ltd. Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mill, Vs. Surat. Fort Songadh, Surat. Pan : Aaact 6305 N Appellant Respondednt

Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted by CIT(A) by holding that the disallowance is made solely for not making TDS. The Assessing Officer has not questioned genuineness of expenses or questioned the purpose of expenses. The explanation of the assessee was ITA 181/SRT/2020 DCIT Vs J K Paper Ltd. that they believed that no TDS to be made

FORTUNE DREAM CON PVT. LTD,VAPI vs. ITO, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.321/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Vs. The Ito, Ward-2, 3Rd Floor, Fortune Dream Con Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 165/C/3, Opp. Fortune Pakak Arcade, Aayakar Bhavan, Mall, Gidc, Vapi. Shantinagar Tithal Road, Valsad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcf 4561 F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Vls/115/17-18 Dated 14.05.2019 Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 30.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld Cit(A) Had Erred On The Facts Of The Case In Upholding The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.”

TDS was deducted by the deductor, namely, Damodar Suruchi Developers, therefore there is a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and therefore Assessing Officer was right in levying the penalty under section 271

M/S. PANCHSHEEL INTERMEDIATES,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Panchsheel Intermediates Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8101, Income Tax, Circle-2(3) Vs. Industrial Estate, Surat Sachin, Surat Pan : Aadfp1002C Appellant Respondednt

section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 15.03.2016. Before passing the order of penalty, the assessee was issued show cause 2 M/s Panchseel Intermediates, Surat notice dated 17.02.2016. The notice duly served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee filed reply on 09.03.2016, which was not accepted by him. The Assessing Officer recorded that

SHILPRAJ DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS- 2,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3160/Ahd/2014 & 2054/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 1) The Ito/Tds-2, 12, Suryakiran Apt., Ghod-Dod Surat. Road, Surat – 395007. Jcit/T.D.S. [Pan: Aadcs 3045 H] Range/Surat. अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 03.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 & 3, Surat For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. In Ita No.316/Ahd/2014, The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Order Under Section 201(1) R.W.S 201(1A) Passed By Ito- Tds. & In Ita No.2054/Ahd/2016, The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271C Of The Act. As Both The Appeals Are Arising Of The Order Passed By Ito-Tds Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) & Are Inter- Connected With Each Other, Therefore, With The Consent Of The Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito/Tds-2/Srt /

TDS issued a show cause notice to the assessee on 19.03.2013, which was served on 23.02.2013, directing the assessee to attend the office of AO on or before 23.03.2013 asking the assessee to show cause to as to why it should treat the assessee in default under section 201(1) as well as 201(1A) and the penalty under section

SHILPRAJ DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE JCIT, T.D.S. RANGE,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3160/Ahd/2014 & 2054/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 1) The Ito/Tds-2, 12, Suryakiran Apt., Ghod-Dod Surat. Road, Surat – 395007. Jcit/T.D.S. [Pan: Aadcs 3045 H] Range/Surat. अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 03.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 & 3, Surat For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. In Ita No.316/Ahd/2014, The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Order Under Section 201(1) R.W.S 201(1A) Passed By Ito- Tds. & In Ita No.2054/Ahd/2016, The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271C Of The Act. As Both The Appeals Are Arising Of The Order Passed By Ito-Tds Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) & Are Inter- Connected With Each Other, Therefore, With The Consent Of The Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito/Tds-2/Srt /

TDS issued a show cause notice to the assessee on 19.03.2013, which was served on 23.02.2013, directing the assessee to attend the office of AO on or before 23.03.2013 asking the assessee to show cause to as to why it should treat the assessee in default under section 201(1) as well as 201(1A) and the penalty under section

DINABEN DILIPKUMAR PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y.2012-13. Both the appeals are interconnected, thus, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated ITA No.337/Srt/2022 & 69/Srt/2023 Dinaben Dilipkumar Patel Vs ITO order. In quantum assessment appeal in ITA No. 337/Srt/2020 the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

DINABEN DILIPKUMAR PATEL,NA vs. ASRIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y.2012-13. Both the appeals are interconnected, thus, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated ITA No.337/Srt/2022 & 69/Srt/2023 Dinaben Dilipkumar Patel Vs ITO order. In quantum assessment appeal in ITA No. 337/Srt/2020 the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

TDS, Circle- Ranchi under section 131 (1)(d) of the Act to conduct enquiries in case of the lenders based at Ranchi. The said officers have sent the enquiry reports, which are framing part of assessment order. The findings of the AO as per chart is as under: S. Name of the Alleged Findings of enquiry N. Lenders Loan(includi

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

section 263 dated 20.03.2018. Before passing, the revision order, the ld. Pr. CIT, on perusal of assessment record noted that assessee has shown the sales of services above ten lakh and have shown total revenue on account of rendering service of Rs. 25,40,05,845/-. It was further noted that the assessee has claimed TDS credit