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

37 BB is not in line with the amended provision of Section 195(6). As per the present Rule 37BB, Form 15CA would be required only if the remittance is chargeable to tax. Hence, the CBDT had not prescribed anything for reporting in the case of payments to non-resident not liable to tax in India. In addition to above

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

271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring that appellant neither concealed income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts confirming penalty levied by AO merely on the basis of disallowance of the claim U/s 10(37) of the Act ignoring that the appellant had disclosed complete details with relevant documents

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WASRD-3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

10. Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee pleaded before the Bench that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are bad in law as there was no new information before the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. The Ld. Counsel took us through the original assessment order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 r.w.s

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

10. Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee pleaded before the Bench that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are bad in law as there was no new information before the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. The Ld. Counsel took us through the original assessment order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 r.w.s

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera. The assessee filed its return of income

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera. The assessee filed its return of income

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera. The assessee filed its return of income

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

10. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that AO had issued various notices on six occasions including the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee had not responded to any of the notices nor filed any submission or details before the AO. The details of notices are at para

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO WARD-1, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

10. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that AO had issued various notices on six occasions including the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee had not responded to any of the notices nor filed any submission or details before the AO. The details of notices are at para

SHREE GANESH KHAND UDHYOG,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” ITA 1190/AHD/2017/AY.2012-13/249 & 248/SRT/2018/2013-14 & 2014-15 Shree Ganesh Khand Udhyog Sahakari Mandli 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income

SHREE GANESH KHAND UDHYOG,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” ITA 1190/AHD/2017/AY.2012-13/249 & 248/SRT/2018/2013-14 & 2014-15 Shree Ganesh Khand Udhyog Sahakari Mandli 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income

PRAKASHSINH THAKOR,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Prakashsinh Thakor, A.C.I.T., 53, Pratap Nagar, Delad, Olpad, Circle2(2), Vs. Surat-394540 Surat. Pan: Alhpt 9125 B Appellant Respondednt

u/s 139(1) of the Act. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and partly confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC 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.” 2. Brief facts of the case

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income for AY.2012-13 on 25.09.2012 declaring at ‘Nil’ income. The case

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDALI LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income for AY.2012-13 on 25.09.2012 declaring at ‘Nil’ income. The case

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society is running Cooperative Sugar Mill engaged in production of sugar and its bye-products. The assessee filed its return of income for AY.2012-13 on 25.09.2012 declaring at ‘Nil’ income. The case

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

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, 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