MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

addition of the estimated commission income. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

addition of the estimated commission income. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

addition of the estimated commission income. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

addition of the estimated commission income. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition

VASIMKHAN HAMIDKHAN PATHAN,DANG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.704/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Vasimkhan Hamidkhan Pathan Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Navsari, Income Ta Office, Charpool, O Main Bazar, At & Po Waghai Vs. Awabaug, Navsari-396445 Tal, Dang-394730 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bptpp 6081 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

income. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable to the extent of tax on the addition of Rs.3,67,500/-. The concealment

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)

income for which assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, assessing officer imposed penalty of Rs.5,36,030/-, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6.Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the penalty on estimated addition

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)

income for which assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, assessing officer imposed penalty of Rs.5,36,030/-, under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6.Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the penalty on estimated addition

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO,WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

income. The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant did not provide any reason or explanation before the CIT(A) to prove that there was reasonable cause as provided u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, he held that the AO had rightly invoked penalty provisions u/s 271

JANAKKUMAR MUKUNDPRASAD PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

income of assessee during the penalty proceedings, and hence Ld. Counsel contended that the penalty on estimation should not be ITA.418/SRT/2023 AY.14-15 Janakkumar M Patel imposed. Hence, it is abundantly clear that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was imposed on estimated addition

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

penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is held not imposable; where no addition has been made to the total income assessed

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

penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is held not imposable; where no addition has been made to the total income assessed

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

penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is held not imposable; where no addition has been made to the total income assessed