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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1 Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1 Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section

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)

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 and confirmed the penalty in respect of sundry creditors, observing as follows: “On merits of penalty levied by the AO, I find that the penalty u/s

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)

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 and confirmed the penalty in respect of sundry creditors, observing as follows: “On merits of penalty levied by the AO, I find that the penalty u/s

R.S. TRADELINK PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. The grievances raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On facts and circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.2,11,09,303/- u/s

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, and two penalty orders passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, and two penalty orders passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, and two penalty orders passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)© has undergone a substantial change after the insertion of Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)© w.e.f

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

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271(1

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

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271(1

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

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271(1

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

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271(1

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

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271(1

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

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271(1

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

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271(1

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

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271(1

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

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271(1