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)

13. Therefore, in this background, first of all, we shall examine the notice issued by the assessing officer under section 271 (1) (c ) of the Act, which is reproduced below: ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury 14. We have gone through

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, 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)

13. Therefore, in this background, first of all, we shall examine the notice issued by the assessing officer under section 271 (1) (c ) of the Act, which is reproduced below: ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury 14. We have gone through

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

13. We have heard both the parties. Learned DR for the Revenue argued that medical expenses and tea expenses are deleted by ld CIT(A) without considering the fact that it is not reimbursement of expenses. The ld DR ITA Nos.590/SRT/2019 & 4/SRT/2020 The Surat Dist. Co.op Bank Ltd. stated that it is part of expenses and further

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

13. We have heard both the parties. Learned DR for the Revenue argued that medical expenses and tea expenses are deleted by ld CIT(A) without considering the fact that it is not reimbursement of expenses. The ld DR ITA Nos.590/SRT/2019 & 4/SRT/2020 The Surat Dist. Co.op Bank Ltd. stated that it is part of expenses and further

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

13 indicate that it is only the addition or disallowance to the total income that would represent the income for the purposes of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

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

13 indicate that it is only the addition or disallowance to the total income that would represent the income for the purposes of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

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

13 indicate that it is only the addition or disallowance to the total income that would represent the income for the purposes of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

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

13 indicate that it is only the addition or disallowance to the total income that would represent the income for the purposes of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

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

13 indicate that it is only the addition or disallowance to the total income that would represent the income for the purposes of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

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

13 indicate that it is only the addition or disallowance to the total income that would represent the income for the purposes of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

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

13 indicate that it is only the addition or disallowance to the total income that would represent the income for the purposes of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

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

13 indicate that it is only the addition or disallowance to the total income that would represent the income for the purposes of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

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

13 indicate that it is only the addition or disallowance to the total income that would represent the income for the purposes of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. AASTHA CORPORATION,, SURAT

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

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:

disallowance to the total income Aastha Developers & Others / ITA.No’s.2086 to 2089/Ahd/2016/AY: 2011-12 & 13-14 Page 9 of 12 that would represent the income for the purposes of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

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

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

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:

disallowance to the total income Aastha Developers & Others / ITA.No’s.2086 to 2089/Ahd/2016/AY: 2011-12 & 13-14 Page 9 of 12 that would represent the income for the purposes of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. AASTHA ECO HOMES,, SURAT

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

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:

disallowance to the total income Aastha Developers & Others / ITA.No’s.2086 to 2089/Ahd/2016/AY: 2011-12 & 13-14 Page 9 of 12 that would represent the income for the purposes of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. AASTHA ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

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

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:

disallowance to the total income Aastha Developers & Others / ITA.No’s.2086 to 2089/Ahd/2016/AY: 2011-12 & 13-14 Page 9 of 12 that would represent the income for the purposes of levy of penalty within the meaning of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c

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

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

13. record and gone through the above case laws. There is no dispute about the fact that there was a survey action u/s.133A, and the assessee offered additional income therein. The income so offered was duly declared in the return of income and the assessment was framed. Apart from his activity of plotting and development it was submitted that there

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT vs. SAI VIHAR CORPORATION,, SURAT

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

13. record and gone through the above case laws. There is no dispute about the fact that there was a survey action u/s.133A, and the assessee offered additional income therein. The income so offered was duly declared in the return of income and the assessment was framed. Apart from his activity of plotting and development it was submitted that there