SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEWA MANDAL TRUST,UNA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.204/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Sewa Vs. The Ito, Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘Nfac), Delhi, In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036051308(1) Dated 30.09.2021, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

depreciation claimed of Rs.20,63,925/- is not allowable in view of section 11(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Making of a patently wrong and inadmissible claim for deduction/exemption by the assessee is clearly tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income which attracts the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1)(c) of the Act. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA was upheld. However, the disallowance of sludge disposal charges and depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty under Section 271

M/S. BASE INDUSTRIES LTD.,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD -1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus,certain facts in both the appeals are common, therefore, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decision. In ITA No.1581/AHD/2013, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned

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) cannot be levied on additions made on estimation. The observations of the Coordinate Bench are as follows: “11. We have noted that the assessee while filing return of income for assessment year 1988-89 on 20.06.1988 declared loss in the form unabsorbed depreciation

SHREE HARI PROCESSORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(1)(2) (NEW ITO WD. 2(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shree Hari Processors India Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Block No.99/P, Post Ward-2(1)(2), [New Ito Wd Vs Tatithaiya, 2(1)(3)] Aayakar Bhawan, Tal-Palsana, Majura Gate, Surat-394 372 Surat-395001 E-Mail:Jain_Tex@Yahoo.Com Pan : Aadca 1313 N Appellant /Assessee Respondent / Revenue

depreciation. The assessee was taxed under Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) under section 115JB of the Act. The assessee’s claim was not found to be false, exaggerated or wrong but disallowed by Assessing Officer. The assessee also given explanation on various provisions section 271(1)(c

BAYER VAPI PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,),VAPI vs. THE A CIT., VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.1688/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bayer Vapi Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Income Tax, Private Limited), Plot No.306/3, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Phase-Ii, Vapi – 396 195, Gujarat. [Pan: Aabcb 2100 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul K Patel, Advocate & Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca Shri Prasenjit Singh – Cit(Dr) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 18.07.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 27.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The 1. Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Valsad, Valsad(In Short “The Cit(A)”) Dated 31.03.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita 2. No.1688/Ahd/2014 Read As Under : “01. The Appellant Company Has Neither Concealed Its Income Nor Submitted Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & The Adjustments/ Additions Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Facts Of The Case & Law & Deserves To Be Deleted. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.Acit-Vapi/Ita No.1688/Ahd/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 2 Of 20

section 271(1)(c) raises a presumption that as and when any amount Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(formerly known as Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.ACIT-Vapi/ITA No.1688/AHD/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 9 of 20 is added as disallowed in computing the total income the same shall be deemed or represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. The entire

BHARUCH DISTRICT CO OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,BHARUCH vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) The Bharuch District Co Op Milk A.C.I.T. Producers Union Limited, Circle-1, Vs. Old N.H. 8, Bholav, Bharuch. Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aaaat 1470 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271(1)(c) should not be levied on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response thereto, the assessee filed its reply dated 15/03/2018. Part of reply of assessee is extracted by the Assessing Officer in para 5 of his 2 The Bharuch District Co.Op Milk Producers Union Ltd Vs ACIT order. The assessee in its reply submitted that software

RAJVI CORPORATION,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. Rajvi Corporation, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(2)(2), D-3, Om Final Plot No. 108, Bombay Surat. Food Compound Kasanagar Road, Nr. Idbi Bank Katargam, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofr0631E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ronak Parekh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A),-3/10473/2016-17 Dated 19.07.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on ad hoc disallowances. It is settled principle of law that on ad hoc disallowances the penalty should be levied. For that, reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 293 & 294/AHD/2005 in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd, order dated 13.04.2021, wherein

V. M. MANIYAR EXPORTS,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1368/Srt/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) V.M.Maniyar Exports Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Plot No.103-104, Surat Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat Vs. Special Economic Zone, Gidc, Sachin,Surat-394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifv 6884 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 32(1) of the Act, depreciation shall be granted, whether or not the assessee claims the same. The AO accordingly reduced profit by Rs.8,43,752/- and deduction was restricted to Rs.21,43,313/- instead of Rs.29,58,065/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c

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 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

SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ,SURAT vs. SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 998/Srt/2024 (Ay 2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Sahajanand Medical Technologies Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Ltd. Nr. Dabholi Char Rasta, Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat, Room बनाम Ved Road, No.602, 6Th Floor, Vs Surat-395 004 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, [Pan : Aafcs 7694 L] Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

depreciation on the leasehold improvement by amortizing @ 20% for five years and no penalty is leviable on such issue. The Ld. AR of the assessee relied on various decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Tribunal on the ratio that no penalty under section 271(1)(c

GIPILON TEXTURISING PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.293 & 294/Ahd/2005 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1988-89 & 1989-90 Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 10-C, Brijkutir Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(2), Surat. Nr.Nidhi Complex, Parle Point, Op.Umrigar School, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Abepp 6880 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2141 & 2142/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1988-89 & 1989-90 Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 10-C, Brijkutir Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(2), Surat. Nr.Nidhi Complex, Parle Point, Op.Umrigar School, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Abepp 6880 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Shah – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Usha Shrote – Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. These Four Appeals By Assessee, Out Of Which First Two Appeals (Ita (S) No. 294 & 294/Ahd/2005 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 08.12.2004, Which In Turn Arise Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) For A.Y. 1988-89 & 1989-90. Other

section 271(1)(c), the ld CIT(A) while passed common order for both assessment years, therefore , with the consent of parties the appeal in ITA No.293/AHD/2005 for A.Y. 1988-89 is treated as lead case. ITA No.293/Ahd/2005 for A.Y. 1988-89: 7. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that though the assessee