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

SHRI BIPINCHANDRA HIRALAL THAKKAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2126/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Ay.: (2013-14) Shri Bipinchandra Hiralal Thakkar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.60/61, Hari Ichha Society, Ward-1(2)6, Surat. Udhna Bhestan Road, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpt1432D (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 194A and 194C of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, assessing officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain the reasons for non-deduction of TDS. 4. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed written submissions before the assessing officer, which is reproduced below (to the extent relevant for our analysis): "During the year

DHANSUKHLAL MAGANLAL DHANGAR,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Dhansukhlal Maganlal Dhangar, I.T.O., Shantinagar Society, Ranifaliya, Ward-2, Vs. Vansda, Navsari-396580 (Gujarat) Navsari. Pan No. Acypd 0673 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS on remaining amount of leave encashment. The assessee on show cause, could not furnish any documentary evidence to prove the eligibility to get entire leave encashment as exempt. The Assessing Officer allowed exempt income to the extent of Rs. 3.00 lacs out of Rs. 9,48,830/- thereby made addition of Rs. 6,48,830/- and initiated penalty

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

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) dated 06/12/2016. In response to the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer recorded that no body attended the hearing nor filed any explanation. The Assessing officer levied the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded thereby imposing penalty of Rs. 3,38,136/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded

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

274 read with section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer recorded that despite service of show cause notice, the assessee has not availed opportunity to file its explanation. The Assessing Officer, therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 1,62,407/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded on such additions/disallowances. On further appeal before the ld. CIT(A), penalty

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

274 read with section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer recorded that despite service of show cause notice, the assessee has not availed opportunity to file its explanation. The Assessing Officer, therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 1,62,407/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded on such additions/disallowances. On further appeal before the ld. CIT(A), penalty

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

274 read with section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer recorded that despite service of show cause notice, the assessee has not availed opportunity to file its explanation. The Assessing Officer, therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 1,62,407/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded on such additions/disallowances. On further appeal before the ld. CIT(A), penalty

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)

274 of the Act to the assessee vide notice dated 13.09.2017 & 01.01.2018. The assessee submitted reply in this regard however, the assessing officer did not find the reply tenable following which minimum penalty of Rs. 65,060/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer

SURESH RAMANBHAI NAIK L/H OF RAMANBHAI PARBHUBHAI DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Suresh Ramanbhai Naik, I.T.O., L/R Of Ramanbhai Parbhubhai Desai, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. 41, Meghna Raw House, Near Surat. Maharaja Agrasen Bhavan, City Light Road, Surat-395003. Pan No. Akqpd 5495 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

274 r.w.s. 271F of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30/09/2018 in fixing hearing on 18/10/2018. The assessing officer recorded that the assessee filed his reply on 10/01/2019 and furnished copy of original return of income filed on 02/10/2012 and prayed to waive the penalty proceedings. The reply of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer

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

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his notice dated 14/02/2018. The assessing officer identified the following addition/ disallowance; 1. Disallowance of expenses claimed on account of Rs. 4,23,000/- social forestry expenses and depreciation on assets used for social forestry (Restricted) 2 Reduction deduction claimed u/s 80IA Rs. 2,52,99,629/- 3 Disallowance under section

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

274 r.w.s. u/s.271-I is bad in law as it does not specify which limb of section 271-I of the Act. In view of above, the penalty proceedings intended to be initiated by applying provision of section 271-I is bad in law and without jurisdiction and requires to be dropped in the interest of natural justice and oblige

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. M/S. D P VEKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 172/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-3(3), Vs. M/S. D. P. Vekariya, Surat Skylark Shopping, B/H Kapodara Police Station, Varachha Road, Surat, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfd 8442 Q (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr 02/06/2022 Date Of Hearing 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

274 ITR 25 (Cal.), the reopening of assessment is bad in law. We note that there is change in opinion as 172/SRT/2020/AY.2009-10 D. P. Vekariya the assessee has disclosed all the material facts in its return of income, and submitted WIP details, Interest details, TDS details, contract income, interest income, Balance Sheet along with annexures, and other evidences as required

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

TDS for Rs.\n1,15,000/- in page 73 of A-23.\nxiii) The Respondent strongly relies on decision of PCIT V. Shri Kuberji Developers\n(IT (SS) A. No. 7 / SRT / 2024) (Paper book page No. 41 to 50) and DCIT V.\nHiteshkumar Laljibhai Patel (IT (SS) A. No. 114 / SRT / 2023) wherein addition\nwas made on the base

NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT

TDS for Rs.\n1,15,000/- in page 73 of A-23.\nxiii) The Respondent strongly relies on decision of PCIT V. Shri Kuberji Developers\n(IT (SS) A. No. 7 / SRT / 2024) (Paper book page No. 41 to 50) and DCIT V.\nHiteshkumar Laljibhai Patel (IT (SS) A. No. 114 / SRT / 2023) wherein addition\nwas made on the base

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

TDS for Rs.\n1,15,000/- in page 73 of A-23.\nxiii) The Respondent strongly relies on decision of PCIT V. Shri Kuberji Developers\n(IT (SS) A. No. 7 / SRT / 2024) (Paper book page No. 41 to 50) and DCIT V.\nHiteshkumar Laljibhai Patel (IT (SS) A. No. 114 / SRT / 2023) wherein addition\nwas made on the base

M/S. J.K. JEWELLERS,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.440/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Bharuch. Station Road, Near Rungta School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.443/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, Station Road, Near Rungta Bharuch. School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 30.12.2016. ITA Nos.440 & 443//SRT/2018/AY.2014-15 M/s. J. K. Jewellers 2. Since, the issues involved in these two appeals, are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH vs. M/S. J.K. JEWELLERS, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.440/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Bharuch. Station Road, Near Rungta School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.443/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, Station Road, Near Rungta Bharuch. School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 30.12.2016. ITA Nos.440 & 443//SRT/2018/AY.2014-15 M/s. J. K. Jewellers 2. Since, the issues involved in these two appeals, are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience