ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SURAT vs. M/S. D.KHUSHALBHAI JEWELLERS,, SURAT

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,71,03,941/- holding that addition due to difference of valuation cannot be held as concealment of income without appreciating that the valuation was correctly made by the A.O. adopting average purchase price of the year, since, no quantitative records were maintained by the assessee to explain the item wise correct purchase price

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIR 1(3), SURAT vs. M/S. D.KHUSHALBHAI JEWELLERS,, SURAT

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,71,03,941/- holding that addition due to difference of valuation cannot be held as concealment of income without appreciating that the valuation was correctly made by the A.O. adopting average purchase price of the year, since, no quantitative records were maintained by the assessee to explain the item wise correct purchase price

SHRI VIMALCHAND JAIN,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result the ground No

penalty proceedings are hereby initiated by issue of Show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c)of the Act.” 11.Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 12.Learned Counsel for the assessee argues that reasons recorded by the assessing officer are not in accordance with the scheme of the provisions

JITENDRAKUMAR AMBELAL PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for e appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Jitendrakumarambelal Patel Ito, Ward-3, 52, Kanbiwad. At & Po-Pananj, Room No. 108, Swapnalok Soc., Tal-Chikhli, Navsari-396521 Vs. Near Kaliawadi Bridge, Navsari - 396521 Pan No. Bncpp 7509 R Appellant Respondent

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 4. It is therefore prayed that above penalty may please be 4. It is therefore prayed that above penalty may please be 4. It is therefore prayed that above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income.” 11. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the AO made addition of Rs.7.96 crore to the total income of assessee. 12. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A).Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income.” 11. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the AO made addition of Rs.7.96 crore to the total income of assessee. 12. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A).Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income.” 11. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the AO made addition of Rs.7.96 crore to the total income of assessee. 12. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A).Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed

ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. AMITBHAI VASANTLAL SHAH, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.474/Srt/2023 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Physical Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward Amitbhai Vasantlal Shah No.1(3)(1) Surat, Room No.203, C, Ground Floor, Ravijyot Vs Income Tax Office, Anavil Apartment, Opp. Lourds Business Centre, Adajan-395009 Convent School, Athwalines, Surat-395001 Pan Apxps 3639 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in respect of LTG of Rs.3,94,66,218/- treated as business income by disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer Amitbhai

SHRI BABUBHAI PRITAMSINGH JAMADAR,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2,, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 748/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroada. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 749/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 750/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmoodbhai Pritamsingh The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujara). Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 55/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 56/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch. Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 400/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmood P. Jamadar The Ito Ward-4 Dandia Bazar, Bharuch Bharuch. Vs. (Gujara). स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

section 69B are not applicable and that there is no unexplained investment made by assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,28,966/- öut of addition of Rs.65,16,197/- made by the AO, towards alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. 4. The appellant

SHRI MEHMOODBHAI PRITAMSINGH JAMADAR,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2,, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 748/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroada. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 749/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 750/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmoodbhai Pritamsingh The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujara). Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 55/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 56/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch. Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 400/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmood P. Jamadar The Ito Ward-4 Dandia Bazar, Bharuch Bharuch. Vs. (Gujara). स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

section 69B are not applicable and that there is no unexplained investment made by assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,28,966/- öut of addition of Rs.65,16,197/- made by the AO, towards alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. 4. The appellant

SHRI BABUBHAI P. JAMADAR,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 748/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroada. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 749/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 750/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmoodbhai Pritamsingh The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujara). Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 55/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 56/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch. Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 400/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmood P. Jamadar The Ito Ward-4 Dandia Bazar, Bharuch Bharuch. Vs. (Gujara). स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

section 69B are not applicable and that there is no unexplained investment made by assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,28,966/- öut of addition of Rs.65,16,197/- made by the AO, towards alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. 4. The appellant

SHRI VIJESH P. JAMADAR,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 748/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroada. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 749/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 750/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmoodbhai Pritamsingh The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujara). Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 55/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 56/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch. Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 400/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmood P. Jamadar The Ito Ward-4 Dandia Bazar, Bharuch Bharuch. Vs. (Gujara). स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

section 69B are not applicable and that there is no unexplained investment made by assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,28,966/- öut of addition of Rs.65,16,197/- made by the AO, towards alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. 4. The appellant

SHRI MEHMOOD P. JAMADAR,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 748/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroada. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 749/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 750/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmoodbhai Pritamsingh The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujara). Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 55/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 56/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch. Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 400/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmood P. Jamadar The Ito Ward-4 Dandia Bazar, Bharuch Bharuch. Vs. (Gujara). स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

section 69B are not applicable and that there is no unexplained investment made by assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,28,966/- öut of addition of Rs.65,16,197/- made by the AO, towards alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. 4. The appellant

SHRI VIJESH PRITAMSINGH JAMADAR,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2,, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 748/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroada. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 749/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 750/Ahd/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmoodbhai Pritamsingh The Acit, Central Circle-2, Baroda. Jamadar Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujara). Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 55/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Vijesh Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan:Achpj7661F आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 56/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) Shri Babubhai Pritamsingh बिधम/ The Ito Ward-4 Jamadar Bharuch. Vs. Dandia Bazar, Bharuch (Gujarat). Pan: Acapj5829N आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 400/Ahd/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Mehmood P. Jamadar The Ito Ward-4 Dandia Bazar, Bharuch Bharuch. Vs. (Gujara). स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acapj5828D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

section 69B are not applicable and that there is no unexplained investment made by assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,28,966/- öut of addition of Rs.65,16,197/- made by the AO, towards alleged unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. 4. The appellant