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

u/s 54F of the Act, “for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Hence, there is no definite charge (fix charge), as pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 19. As stated above, no clear finding was given by the assessing officer regarding the invocation of the limb in the penalty order the assessing officer levied the Vijay

MAYUR MATHURDAS PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.697 & 698/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. She argues that voluntary disclosure does not lead to assessee being free from mischief of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. She contends that assessee has claimed deduction under section 54B of the Act knowingly to cheat the Revenue. She stated that case law relied

SHRI VIJAYSING P. SOLANKI,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.697 & 698/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. She argues that voluntary disclosure does not lead to assessee being free from mischief of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. She contends that assessee has claimed deduction under section 54B of the Act knowingly to cheat the Revenue. She stated that case law relied

SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEWA MANDAL TRUST,UNA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.204/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Sewa Vs. The Ito, Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘Nfac), Delhi, In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036051308(1) Dated 30.09.2021, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

u/s 11(6) of the Act, it had claimed depreciation in its return of income filed. The assessee also submitted that the depreciation was shown in the Profit and Loss account of the trust following the normal account practices. As per the assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings it is noticed that the assessee trust had claimed depreciation

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S J.K. Paper Ltd. Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mill, Vs. Surat. Fort Songadh, Surat. Pan : Aaact 6305 N Appellant Respondednt

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the ld. CIT(A) allowed substantial relief to the assessee on various additions and disallowancevide order No. CAS-1/145/2015-16 dated 11/05/2016, by following the orders of Tribunal in earlier year. The ld CIT(A), sustained the penaly on the following additions

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. M/S. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties

SHRI GORDHANBHAI R. ASODARIA,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Gordhanbhai R. Asodaria, A.C.I.T., 8, Raghuvir Bunglow, City Light Road, Central Circle-3, Vs. Parle Point, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Abapa 6910 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 14A of the Act. 3. In law, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of A.O. in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D and when no such interest is chargeable. It may be deleted. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances

RAJHANS METALS,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PR. CIT-1,, VALSAD

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. 3. It is prayed that above order passed by Principal Commissioner of Income-tax may please be quashed/set aside. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal 3. The relevant material facts