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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that penalty levied for both concealment as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is double mind of the Assessing Officer. The Ld Counsel referred to the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 88 taxmann.com 413 and the decision

HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

183 ITD 313 (Rajkot - Trib.)[29-06-2020] the ITAT held that when income of assessee is determined on estimate basis then no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 14. In the case of Income-tax Officer vs. Sunil Bhagwandas Vorani (HUF) [2024] 169 taxmann.com 23 (Mumbai-Trib

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT.LTD.,,SILVASA vs. THE ACIT.,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.380/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial Income Tax, S. Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.353/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial S. Income Tax, Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 & (A.Y.) 2011-12, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Order & Penalty Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act & Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

u/s 115JB of the Act.Considering the facts and circumstances available on record the assessing officer held that assessee has concealed the income of Rs. 34,26,806/-. Therefore, the assessing officer has worked out the penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded to the tune of Rs.6,35,330/-. 12. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT.LTD.,,SILVASA vs. THE DCIT.,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.380/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial Income Tax, S. Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.353/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial S. Income Tax, Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 & (A.Y.) 2011-12, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Order & Penalty Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act & Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

u/s 115JB of the Act.Considering the facts and circumstances available on record the assessing officer held that assessee has concealed the income of Rs. 34,26,806/-. Therefore, the assessing officer has worked out the penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded to the tune of Rs.6,35,330/-. 12. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed

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

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

JHONSON ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.754/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Jhonson Electric Company Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara – 390007. C/O. C.K.Pithawala Bhimpore, Post: Dumas Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aaacj 4908 P अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Sh. Saurabh Soparkar With Sh. Mayur K. Swadia Ars. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2020 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 22.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara Dated 17.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Facts “1. & In Law In Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Short Term Capital Gain. 2. Your Appellant Craves The Right To Add To Or Alter, Amend, Substitute, Delete Or Modify All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 are being initiated separately in this regards.” Johnson Electric Co. Ltd., Vs. ITO ITA No.754/AHD/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 8. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A) the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 9. We have heard the submissions of ld. Authorized Representative