YASH BHUPESHBHAI TAMAKUWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(5), NOW INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(2)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.580/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yash Bhupeshbhai Tamakuwala, Vs. The Ito, 1/208, Kharadi Sheri, Nanpura, Ward- 1(2)(6), Surat – 395001. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajypt3602P (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.68,319/- in respect of long term capital gain

HASMUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,VAPI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income. 4. Subsequently, Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on 30.03.2016. In response to the show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee did not submit any reply. The Assessing Officer

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty levied by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 5. The ground

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty levied by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 5. The ground

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty levied by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 5. The ground

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty levied by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 5. The ground

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty levied by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 5. The ground

JHONSON ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.754/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Jhonson Electric Company Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara – 390007. C/O. C.K.Pithawala Bhimpore, Post: Dumas Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aaacj 4908 P अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Sh. Saurabh Soparkar With Sh. Mayur K. Swadia Ars. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2020 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 22.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara Dated 17.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Facts “1. & In Law In Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Short Term Capital Gain. 2. Your Appellant Craves The Right To Add To Or Alter, Amend, Substitute, Delete Or Modify All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

Capital Gain, the appellant has filed inaccurate particulars of income and hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 are being

SHRI VIJAY CHAMPAK PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act is initiated separately on this point.” 5. The assessee also claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act, at Rs.52,04,000/-against the long term capital gain

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

Penalty notice u/s. 271(l)(b) was also issued on 08.09.2017. The assessee with other persons have transferred two non- agricultural land to Shanti Integrated Textile Park Pvt. Ltd. and Assessee’s share was Rs.2.28,72,600. The assessee has not offered any capital gain

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty levied by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 5. The ground

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains + Rs. 38,90,500 on account of cash deposits) was made and penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)© of the Act was issued

SHRI SALAHUDDIN H. BAIG,,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain on sale of said plot of land of Rs. 59,28,419/- was brought to the tax. Separately, the penalty proceedings u/s 271

KIRTI KARSANDAS NAYAK,UMBERGAON vs. ITO WARD-5, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Kirti Karsandas Nayak, Ito Ward-5, Plot No. 244/28, Gidc, Fortune Square, Chala Road, Umbergaon-396171. Vs. Vapi-396191. Pan No. Abbpn 3355 M Appellant Respondent

capital gain. 4. LD. NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing the LD. NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing the LD. NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal by appeal by observing delay ignoring fact that there is observing delay ignoring fact that there is no delay in filing appeal

DHAVAL INDRAVADAN GANDHI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Ito Ward-2, At & Post Areth, Tal Mandvi, Aayakar Bhavan, Janta Nagar Surat-394160. Vs. Society, Bardoli-394601. Pan No. Ajjpg 4246 J Appellant Respondent

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. 4.0 That the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify, 4.0 That the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify, 4.0 That the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds

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-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 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