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)

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

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

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,34,591/-under section 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

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,34,591/-under section 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

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,34,591/-under section 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

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,34,591/-under section 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 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

14 in the respective appeals which arise out of identical orders passed by the CIT(A)-4, Surat wherein the quashing of the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) has been assailed. The grounds raised by Revenue in ITA No.2961/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2. 2013-14 as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. VIP CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

14 in the respective appeals which arise out of identical orders passed by the CIT(A)-4, Surat wherein the quashing of the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) has been assailed. The grounds raised by Revenue in ITA No.2961/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2. 2013-14 as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. CHHAYA ASSOCIATES,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

14 in the respective appeals which arise out of identical orders passed by the CIT(A)-4, Surat wherein the quashing of the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) has been assailed. The grounds raised by Revenue in ITA No.2961/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2. 2013-14 as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHAH & DESAI CONSTRUCTION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

14 in the respective appeals which arise out of identical orders passed by the CIT(A)-4, Surat wherein the quashing of the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) has been assailed. The grounds raised by Revenue in ITA No.2961/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2. 2013-14 as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. AVANTIS ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

14 in the respective appeals which arise out of identical orders passed by the CIT(A)-4, Surat wherein the quashing of the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) has been assailed. The grounds raised by Revenue in ITA No.2961/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2. 2013-14 as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. PRIME DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

14 in the respective appeals which arise out of identical orders passed by the CIT(A)-4, Surat wherein the quashing of the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) has been assailed. The grounds raised by Revenue in ITA No.2961/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2. 2013-14 as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE BUILDERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

14 in the respective appeals which arise out of identical orders passed by the CIT(A)-4, Surat wherein the quashing of the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) has been assailed. The grounds raised by Revenue in ITA No.2961/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2. 2013-14 as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE CONSTRUCTION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

14 in the respective appeals which arise out of identical orders passed by the CIT(A)-4, Surat wherein the quashing of the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) has been assailed. The grounds raised by Revenue in ITA No.2961/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2. 2013-14 as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHANTINATH DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

14 in the respective appeals which arise out of identical orders passed by the CIT(A)-4, Surat wherein the quashing of the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) has been assailed. The grounds raised by Revenue in ITA No.2961/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2. 2013-14 as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. SAI CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. GOKULDHAM ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE SAI DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),,, SURAT vs. M/S. ASTHA DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

2) The Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ITO Vs. Roborant Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mumbai) has held that the assessee having made full and complete disclosure, merely because income returned by assessee under a particular head was assessed by the AO under another head is not sufficient to impose penalty