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

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(1)(c

SHRI PIYUSHKUMAR AMBALAL SHROFF,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, BHARUAH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1692/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Piyushkumr A. Shroff (Huf), V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Ketan H Shah, Advocate, . Income-Tax, 93 Sapphire Complex, C G Road, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 Pan: Aachp 9491 E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS certificate showed Rs. 9,09,882 hence, the assessee has suppressed receipts of Rs. 4,29,978. Hence, CIT (A) viewed that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim in accordance with Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c

SHRI ANIL KOTHARI (HUF),,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- 6,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Amrjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं".I.T.A No.2048/Ahd/2010 & 2645/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"Assessment Year:2007-08 1. Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम 1. Sri Anil J Kothari Proprietor Of Income-Tax, Circle -6, Surat. M/S. Arpit Exports, G-01, Vs. Vithrag Chambers, 7/1407 Thoba Sheri, Surat. 2. Sri Anil J Kothari Proprietor Of 2. Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Arpit Exports, G-01, Income-Tax, Circle -6, Surat. Vithrag Chambers, 7/1407 Thoba Sheri, Surat. "था. ले. सं./Pan No.: Aacha 4940 H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mayank Pandey, Sr. D.R.

271(1)(c) of the Act. DCIT, Circle-6, Surat Vs. Anil J Kothari(Vice Versa)/I.T.A.No.2048/Ahd/10 & 2645/Ahd/13 for A.Y. 2007-08 2 I.T.A.No. 2048/Ahd/2010; By the Revenue: 2. Ground No.1 as amended by the Revenue states that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,70,40,363/- made by the AO on account of unverifiable

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting penalty of Rs.4,21,36,403/-levied

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(1)(c

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

GTPL RAJWADI NETWORK PVT. LTD.,BAMROLI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 28.06.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in penalty confirming the action of Assessing

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

section 271(1)(c) on surviving additions and (ii) erroneous computation of penalty by the AO while giving effect to the appellate order due to failure to consider TDS

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

section 271(1)(c) on surviving additions and (ii) erroneous computation of penalty by the AO while giving effect to the appellate order due to failure to consider TDS

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

C of Form No.15CA after obtaining a certificate in Form No. 15CB from an accountant as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288. (2) The person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any sum which is not chargeable under the provisions of the Act, shall furnish

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: “1

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: “1