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

271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. Ground 4. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter

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

271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. Ground 4. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 271(1)(c), levied the penalty on these disallowances. Even the Ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the levy of penalty on the aforesaid Santosh Singh Hukam Singh Karnawat (Individual) vs. ITO Asst. Year – 2012-13 - 6– disallowance, firstly on the ground that assessee has failed to discharge its onus during the course of assessment proceedings as well

JANAKKUMAR MUKUNDPRASAD PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on estimated addition is sustainable or not, was considered by various judicial forums across India. I find that Co-ordinate Bench of ITA.418/SRT/2023 AY.14-15 Janakkumar M Patel ITAT-Surat, in the case of Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No.293 & 294/SRT/2013, order dated 13.04.2021, held that penalty on estimated addition

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAST

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, Ta-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. Pan No. Bhvpp 6740 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, TA-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. PAN No. BHVPP 6740 B Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by Shri P.M. Jaggasheth, CA Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar Sr. DR Date of hearing

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAST

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, Ta-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. Pan No. Bhvpp 6740 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, TA-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. PAN No. BHVPP 6740 B Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by Shri P.M. Jaggasheth, CA Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar Sr. DR Date of hearing

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAST

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, Ta-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. Pan No. Bhvpp 6740 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, TA-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. PAN No. BHVPP 6740 B Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by Shri P.M. Jaggasheth, CA Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar Sr. DR Date of hearing

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAST

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, Ta-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. Pan No. Bhvpp 6740 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, TA-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. PAN No. BHVPP 6740 B Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by Shri P.M. Jaggasheth, CA Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar Sr. DR Date of hearing

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAST

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, Ta-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. Pan No. Bhvpp 6740 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, TA-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. PAN No. BHVPP 6740 B Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by Shri P.M. Jaggasheth, CA Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar Sr. DR Date of hearing

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAST

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, Ta-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. Pan No. Bhvpp 6740 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, TA-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. PAN No. BHVPP 6740 B Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by Shri P.M. Jaggasheth, CA Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar Sr. DR Date of hearing

AKASH MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, Ta-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. Pan No. Bhvpp 6740 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

145, 146 & 147/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Akash Maganlal Patel, D.C.I.T., 174, Shree Gadhpur Township, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pasodara Gam, TA-Kamrej, Surat. Surat-395206. PAN No. BHVPP 6740 B Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by Shri P.M. Jaggasheth, CA Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar Sr. DR Date of hearing

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”).

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income.” 11. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the issue has been discussed and examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order, dated 30.03.2015 for assessment order 2012-13, therefore the Assessing Officer should not have recorded reasons again

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”).

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income.” 11. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the issue has been discussed and examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order, dated 30.03.2015 for assessment order 2012-13, therefore the Assessing Officer should not have recorded reasons again

SHRI BHARATKUMAR T. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, Ground No.1 of appeal is allowed

u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has sustained addition of Rs.20,46,592/- as against the addition of Rs.1,20,00,000/- made by the AO on account of commission income and balance amount of commission amounting of Rs.99

RAJVI CORPORATION,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. Rajvi Corporation, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(2)(2), D-3, Om Final Plot No. 108, Bombay Surat. Food Compound Kasanagar Road, Nr. Idbi Bank Katargam, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofr0631E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ronak Parekh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A),-3/10473/2016-17 Dated 19.07.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Rs.2,66,821/-. 4. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Learned Counsel for the assessee, submits before us that assessing officer has made the disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. SHANTAI EXIM LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Deputy Commissioner Of Shantai Exim Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.435, Sawlani Vs Circle-2(1)(2), Compound, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat. Pan: Aaecm 1115 D Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of Hon’ble ITAT’s order without appreciating the detailed findings of the AO in the assessment order/penalty order establishing the non-genuinity of the purchases made from Damor family. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A), Surat ought to have upheld

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

u/s. 145(3) of the Act. The AO specifically recorded satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and thereafter issued notice u/s.274 read with section 271

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

u/s. 145(3) of the Act. The AO specifically recorded satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and thereafter issued notice u/s.274 read with section 271