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.”

Long Term 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

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 or business income on sale of above land. The assessee vide letter dated 22nd December

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

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

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), 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.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty etc. on my shoulders. I humbly submit that the impugned order is high pitched order and is also arbitrary.” 4. Apart from this, ld Counsel also submitted that entire delay has resulted due to mistake of assessee`s Tax Consultant, Shri Pradip Gohil, who has not checked the order of ld CIT(A) in the e-portal of Income

RAJENDRAPRASAD BABULAL KHETAN,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. - 4, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और ज"ती) सं./It(Ss)A Nos.32/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Long Term Capital Gain as he has not filed return of Income. The assessee has consciously not filed return of income to avoid payment of tax. Therefore, Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

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

Long-Term Capital Gain schemes Term Capital Gain schemes— came to the conclusion that the assessee was one of the came to the conclusion that the assessee was one of the came to the conclusion that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries in the guise of share beneficiaries of accommodation entries in the guise of share

SMT. URVASHI SANJAYKUMAR GUPTA,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainismt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta, I.T.O., Ratna Vihar Apartment, New City Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Light, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Aanpg 4855 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

penalty of Rs. 3,38,136/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore, prayed that addition made by assessing officer & confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted. Smt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta Vs ITO 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before

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

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.14,00,573/- in respect of the addition made on the ground of earning of alleged long term capital gain

AALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.94/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Plot No.168, Udhyog Nagar Road, Udhna, Surat -394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8469M (Assessee) (Respondent)

long- term capital gain shown. [ii] A x B 0 x 75,12,44,464 C 2,47,62,80,788 = Nil. (A) Amount of expenditure by way Nil interest other than the amount of interest included in clause (i) incurred during the year. (B) Average value of investment, income (77,19,84,224 + 73,05,04,703) Assessment Years.2014-15

KANTIBHAI TULSIBHAI BHADANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Or In The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.

Long Term Capital Gain. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

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

u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of deductions & addition on STCG on sale of shares, without appreciating that the assessee had no mens rea or malafide intention. The disallowance or such addition arose due to non-filing of the return, not due to concealment of income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of deductions & addition on STCG on sale of shares, without appreciating that the assessee had no mens rea or malafide intention. The disallowance or such addition arose due to non-filing of the return, not due to concealment of income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

RUCHIT DINESHBHAI DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore, prayed that above penalty levied by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before on in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

SHRI NANUBHAI GOVINDBHI AHIR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Nanubhai Govindbhai Ahir, I.T.O., 143, Sultanabad, Dumas-Ambawadi, Ward-2(3)(3), Vs. Surat-394270. Surat. Pan: Atgpa 0140 A Appellant Respondednt

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.t. Act, 1961 of Rs. 28,63,562/- although addition on which penalty is imposed stands deleted by the Hon’ble Tribunal. (2) Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of appeal.” 2. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative

SUDHIR BHUPENDRA DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT. TAX), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.92/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sudhir Bhupendra Desai Income Tax Officer, (Int. Tax), 106, ‘Shriyam’, Nehru Nagar, Room No.107, 1St Floor, Vs Ichhanath, Svr College, S.O., Income-Tax Office, Surat Surat-395007 Anavil Business Centre, Pan No: Axdpd 7887 Q Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Sudhir B Desai (2) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the circumstances of the appellant of he being Non-resident Indian and his bona fides. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee

VIJAYBHAN SINGH RAJPUT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vijaybhan Singh Rajput, I.T.O., Plot No. 131/3, Near Shrisati Tex Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Prints, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abxpr 3970 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 50C(2) of the act and determined the long term capital gain. The fact remains that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It is only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the act has been started. The revenue has failed to produce any iota of evidence that

JAYANTILAL AMBARAM PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CIR.2(3), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayantilal Ambaram Patel Huf, A.C.I.T., 5, Western Seven Seas, Behind Circle-2(3), Vs. Gangeshwar Temple, Opp. Saint Surat. Mark School, Adajan, Surat, Gujarat- 395009. Pan No. Aafhj 0354 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 10(37) of the Act made by the appellant was allowable and capital gain arising on sale of agricultural land is not exigible to capital gains tax. (copy of order enclosed). Since the disallowance itself is deleted penalty levied on addition cannot survive.” 2. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits