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)

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars, are also being initiated in assessee’s case separately.” 14. It is abundantly clear from the above assessment order passed by the assessing officer under 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Act, that in response to question asked by the assessing officer during the assessment stage, the assessee submitted

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)

143(3) of the Act was completed on 14.03.2014, determining total income of Rs.1,59,98,170/- and made the following additions. Sr.No. Issue of addition Addition in Rs. 1 Addition on account of disallowance of purchase 1,34,64,592/- 2 Addition on account of sundry creditors 15,91,100/- 3 Addition on account of non-deduction

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)

143(3) of the Act was completed on 14.03.2014, determining total income of Rs.1,59,98,170/- and made the following additions. Sr.No. Issue of addition Addition in Rs. 1 Addition on account of disallowance of purchase 1,34,64,592/- 2 Addition on account of sundry creditors 15,91,100/- 3 Addition on account of non-deduction

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

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

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

section 54F of the Act, during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, while making the addition the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act observing as follows:- “By claiming incorrect deduction, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, for which, penalty proceedings 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

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

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

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

JIGNA JAYESHKUMAR MACWAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415 & 416/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigna Jayeshkumar D.C.I.T., Macwan, Central Circle-2, Vs. D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Surat. Green Valley Apt., C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat- 395009. Pan No. Amkpm 9536 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

U/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts

JIGNA JAYESHKUMAR MACWAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415 & 416/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigna Jayeshkumar D.C.I.T., Macwan, Central Circle-2, Vs. D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Surat. Green Valley Apt., C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat- 395009. Pan No. Amkpm 9536 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

U/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts

JIGNA JAYESHKUMAR MACWAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415 & 416/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jigna Jayeshkumar D.C.I.T., Macwan, Central Circle-2, Vs. D-5/6 Uma Park, Opp. Surat. Green Valley Apt., C.S. Marg, Adajan, Surat- 395009. Pan No. Amkpm 9536 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

U/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts