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 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in accordance with law. Therefore, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No.41/SRT/2022 for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No.41/SRT/2022) is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Now, we shall take assessee`s appeal in ITA No.40/SRT/2022, wherein the grounds

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

227 (Guj.) are neither relevant nor germane to the issue considering the fact that in none of the decisions the legislative scheme emanating from the conjoint reading of the provisions of section 14 and 56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 has dealt

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

227 (Guj.) are neither relevant nor germane to the issue considering the fact that in none of the decisions the legislative scheme emanating from the conjoint reading of the provisions of section 14 and 56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 has dealt

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

227 (Guj.) are neither relevant nor germane to the issue considering the fact that in none of the decisions the legislative scheme emanating from the conjoint reading of the provisions of section 14 and 56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 has dealt

SHREE DHANJI J. RAKHOLIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty in the assessment order on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levying the penalty ultimately on both the grounds i.e. for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it shows lack of application