SHRI CHANDRASINH RAMSINH PARMAR,U T OF D & NH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1235 & 1709/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Krishnakumar Ramsinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa C-Twin Bunngalow 4, Manorath Ward-Silvassa. Vs. Residency, Gurudev Complex, Silvasa-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acfpp2308B (Assessee) (Respondent) Chandrasinh Ramsinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Vs. Parmarwadi, Sayli Road, Silvassa, Ward-Silvassa. Dadra & Nagar Haveli-3962310. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aiypp9167F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren R Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

11 of his order, that capital gain on transfer of the capital assets by a ITA 1235 & 1709/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year. 2013-14 K R Parmar & C R Parmar partner to a firm is chargeable to tax in the previous year, in which such transfer has taken place. The amount recorded in the books of accounts of the firm

SHRI KRISHNAKUMAR RAMSINH PARMAR,,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, VAPI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1235 & 1709/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Krishnakumar Ramsinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa C-Twin Bunngalow 4, Manorath Ward-Silvassa. Vs. Residency, Gurudev Complex, Silvasa-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acfpp2308B (Assessee) (Respondent) Chandrasinh Ramsinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Vs. Parmarwadi, Sayli Road, Silvassa, Ward-Silvassa. Dadra & Nagar Haveli-3962310. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aiypp9167F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren R Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

11 of his order, that capital gain on transfer of the capital assets by a ITA 1235 & 1709/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year. 2013-14 K R Parmar & C R Parmar partner to a firm is chargeable to tax in the previous year, in which such transfer has taken place. The amount recorded in the books of accounts of the firm

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE CONSTRUCTION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE BUILDERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. VIP CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHANTINATH DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. AVANTIS ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. CHHAYA ASSOCIATES,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHAH & DESAI CONSTRUCTION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. PRIME DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण . वष" /A Y: 1 1992/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs Imperial Developers, Of Income Tax, . ‘Blossom’ Near Vesu Canal A.Y. 2013-14 Central Opp.Dps School, Circle-3, Surat – 395 Vesu, Surat. 001. [Pan: Aadfi 5694 R] िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah - Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Srinivas T.Bidari – Sr.Dr

capital gain, which was assessed by AO as business income, it cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for purpose of levy of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c). 2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

11. This proposition has been explained by the various High Courts also wherein in the context of sections 54F and 54(2), it has been interpreted that the due date of section 139 can be inferred as due date under section 139(4) also. In CIT v. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 339 ITR 610/203 Taxman 203/15 taxmann.com 146 (P&H) , wherein

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

11. This proposition has been explained by the various High Courts also wherein in the context of sections 54F and 54(2), it has been interpreted that the due date of section 139 can be inferred as due date under section 139(4) also. In CIT v. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 339 ITR 610/203 Taxman 203/15 taxmann.com 146 (P&H) , wherein

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. GOKULDHAM ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

section 271(1 )(c) are not applicable in such a case. d) No penalty can be imposed where the income has been disclosed merely because of change of head of income. This has been held in numerous cases including 1) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Amit Jain

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE SAI DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

section 271(1 )(c) are not applicable in such a case. d) No penalty can be imposed where the income has been disclosed merely because of change of head of income. This has been held in numerous cases including 1) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Amit Jain

THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. SAI CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

section 271(1 )(c) are not applicable in such a case. d) No penalty can be imposed where the income has been disclosed merely because of change of head of income. This has been held in numerous cases including 1) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Amit Jain

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),,, SURAT vs. M/S. ASTHA DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

section 271(1 )(c) are not applicable in such a case. d) No penalty can be imposed where the income has been disclosed merely because of change of head of income. This has been held in numerous cases including 1) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Amit Jain

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. ANJANI DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

section 271(1 )(c) are not applicable in such a case. d) No penalty can be imposed where the income has been disclosed merely because of change of head of income. This has been held in numerous cases including 1) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Amit Jain