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 Act has been levied on the estimated addition by the AO, which has been sustained by the CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that similar penalty imposed in case of its sister concern, M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. was deleted by the ITAT in ITA Nos.132 & 133/SRT/2021 (supra). Further, the ITAT in case

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 Act has been levied on the estimated addition by the AO, which has been sustained by the CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that similar penalty imposed in case of its sister concern, M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. was deleted by the ITAT in ITA Nos.132 & 133/SRT/2021 (supra). Further, the ITAT in case

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 Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury 2. Since common and identical issue are involved except variance in amount, therefore these two appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidate order is being passed for the convenience

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 Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury 2. Since common and identical issue are involved except variance in amount, therefore these two appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidate order is being passed for the convenience

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)

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, in the assessment order in respect of long term capital gain only for one limb, that is, concealment of income, vide para 9 of assessment order. However, in the penalty order under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty for both limbs, that is, concealment

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ii) The assessee, therefore, submits that the penalty levied may be deleted. iii) The assessee craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal. 1 2. The brief facts of the case are that Assessing Officer had assessed the income at Rs. 28,49,83,580/- and had made

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-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

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. 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, 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-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 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. 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

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

143(3). While setting aside the impugned order, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.” 15. We also note that Ld. CIT(A) sustained penalty at Rs.5,000/- partly for second default. However, the quantum of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), for each default is Rs.10,000/-, which is mentioned in clause (ii) sub-Section

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

143(3). While setting aside the impugned order, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.” 15. We also note that Ld. CIT(A) sustained penalty at Rs.5,000/- partly for second default. However, the quantum of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), for each default is Rs.10,000/-, which is mentioned in clause (ii) sub-Section

KASHYAP MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.148 To 154/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjaybhai Arjunbhai Patel Deputy Commissioner Of 37, Shreeji Plaza, Tata Road, Income-Tax Central Circle-1, Vs. No.1, Opera House, Mumbai- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat- 400004 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adipp 4533G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

143(3). While setting aside the impugned order, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.” 15. We also note that Ld. CIT(A) sustained penalty at Rs.5,000/- partly for second default. However, the quantum of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), for each default is Rs.10,000/-, which is mentioned in clause (ii) sub-Section