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

deduction of 25% for paper transactions and related cost from the above estimated commission and computed the commission income at Rs.12,79,105/- (17,05,473 – 4,26,368). He estimated commission @0.02%, @0.20% and @0.50% on total turnover (excluding import and group turnover), import and the outstanding loan respectively. The AO also initiated penalty u/s 271

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

deduction of 25% for paper transactions and related cost from the above estimated commission and computed the commission income at Rs.12,79,105/- (17,05,473 – 4,26,368). He estimated commission @0.02%, @0.20% and @0.50% on total turnover (excluding import and group turnover), import and the outstanding loan respectively. The AO also initiated penalty u/s 271

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(1)(c ) of the Act, in respect of both deductions u/s 54 EC and u/s 54F of the Act, the Assessing

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

deducting tax at source under the above circumstances, therefore, levying of penalty u/s 271C is not justified. Therefore, we delete the penalty u/s 271C in the case of the assessee in respect of ITA No.1661/Ahd/2017, 1662/Ahd/2017, 1664/Ahd/2017 and 2113/Ahd/2013.” 15. Therefore, I note that the penalty levied under section 271C of the Act, on the employer bank has been deleted

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in their respective orders. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. The issue for consideration before us is whether penalty proceedings can be sustained for disallowances made

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)

deduction was restricted to Rs.21,43,313/- instead of Rs.29,58,065/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of deductions & addition on STCG on sale of shares, without appreciating that

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of deductions & addition on STCG on sale of shares, without appreciating that

AKSHAR GEMS,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) Akshar Gems, Assistant Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Shreeji Diamond Apartment, Vs. Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Nandu Doshi Ni Wadi, Vastadevdi Road, Aaykar Bhavan Nr.Majura Katargam, Surat – 395004 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarfa3697A Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

u/s 271-I of the Act is not mandatory but is discretionary and Assessing Officer has to exercise his judicial discretion before levying the penalty. The use of the word “may” in Section 271-I of the Act, clearly shows that discretion is conferred on the Assessing Officer to impose penalty or not to impose the penalty having due regard

VIHAN VIBHAG CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.707/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Vihan Vibhag Credit Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 2(2)(5), At & Po: Vihan, Tal – Kamrej, Surat Tapi – 394320, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabav5113F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the appellant informed its new tax consultant who advised to file appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the delay was neither wilful nor intentional. He requested that the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. ITA No.707/SRT/2025/AY.2017-18 Vihan Vibhag Credit

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR R. LOHIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3),, SURAT

In the result, ground no.1 of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2453/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajeshkumar R.Lohia, V The Income Tax Officer, C/O.Abhay Agencies, S Ward-9(3), Surat. 203, Adatiya Awas, Bombay . Market, Umarwad, Surat – 395010. [Pan: Aaqpl 7299 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R.Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

deducting Rs.5.50 lacs, he made addition of Rs.955,702/-. For this, he imposed a penalty of Rs.507,300/- u/s 271

RAHUL COAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,SURAT vs. ITO TDS-2, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1220/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Rahul Coal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Addl. Cit (Tds), 429-432 Golden Point, Ring Road, Surat, Nr. Bsnl Office, Surat-395 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1044D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

deduct TCS on the sale of Rs.78,32,014/- but still had paid TCS of Rs.78,320/-. Thus, there is no failure on the part of appellant to collect TCS. Thereafter, AO had issued show cause notice to assessee for the default. In reply, assessee ITA No.1220/SRT/2024/AY.2013-14 Rahul Coal India Pvt. Ltd. stated that TCS payment of Rs.87

SHRI HARISHKUMAR NAGINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD - 2(3)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing In Virtual Court) Mohmed Ismail Vakhawala, Vs The Ito, International C/O. Chirag Tambedia & Co., 9, Pruthvi Taxation, Bharuch. Nagar, 1St Floor, Station Road, Bharuch, 392001, Gujarat. [Pan : Abdpv 2440 D] Assessee Respondednt

deduction under the provisions of section 90 read with clause 15 of the DTAA between India and Kazakhstan, in the most humble and respectful submission of the assessee, finding for initiation of penalty proceedings is factually incorrect, then, no proceedings under section 271(1)(C) could survive. 4.1.3) The assessee further submits that, the learned assessing officer has not specified

GTPL RAJWADI NETWORK PVT. LTD.,BAMROLI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in on account for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, in its return of income, therefore penalty should be levied. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We note that the issue under consideration is no longer res integra, and the amount Impex Fees paid

M/S. MAYUR CONSTRUCTION,,VALSAD vs. THE ACIT., VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 1042/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mayur Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad. 110, Amar Chamber,Valsad. S [Pan: Aadfm 9859 L] . अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal as under: The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts to confirm levy of penalty “1. without framing charge that there is furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred

SANJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.618/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary Huf, Vs. The Ito, 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward- 2(3)(6), Jadakadi, Mahidharpura, Surat Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 7. I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee. I note that Assessing Officer has made the estimated addition in the assessee’s case vide assessment order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer under section

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act.” 4. First, we shall adjudicate the Summarized and concise grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA No.195/SRT/2022, where books of accounts of assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer u/s 145(3) of the Act. The summarized and concise ground No.1 is reproduced below for ready

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act.” 4. First, we shall adjudicate the Summarized and concise grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA No.195/SRT/2022, where books of accounts of assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer u/s 145(3) of the Act. The summarized and concise ground No.1 is reproduced below for ready