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

234B(3) of the Act, interest is chargeable on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of reassessment or recompilation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding

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

234B(3) of the Act, interest is chargeable on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of reassessment or recompilation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding

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

234B(3) of the Act, interest is chargeable on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of reassessment or recompilation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding

SADIK DAUDBHAI NANDOLIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

penalty proceedings as initiated u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) & 271Fof the Act being unlawful and devoid of any merit kindly be quashed. Sadik Daudbhai Nandoliya vs. ITO Asst. Year –2012-13 - 3– 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A

PRAGATI GLASS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. FORMER NAME PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD.,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIR.1, , BARODA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pragati Glass & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, Kharach, Kosamba (R.S), Bharuch. District. Bharuch, Bharuch -392001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcp7377H

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

LIGI BIJU KODDASARY,VAPI vs. ITO, WARD-5, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.727/Srt/2024 (Ay 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Ligi Biju Koddasary Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, B-302, Sapphire Apartment, Vapi, 8Th Floor Fortune Square बनाम Raveshia Park, Murarji Circle, Ii, Above Tvz. Chala, Vs Gidc, Vapi-396 195 Vapi-396 191 [Pan : Anypk 5855 G] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

234B, 234C & 234D are unjustified. 9. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified.” 2. Rival submissions of the parties have been heard and record perused. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee submits that assessee filed first appeal on 16.04.2022. Notice under section

BAKIR PACHORIWALA,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, , VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Bakir Pachorwala, I.T.O., Raj Sheet Metal Engg. Works, C- Ward-1, Vs. 1/16-B, Gidc Estate, Pardi, Valsad. Valsad. Pan No. Adxpp 9237 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

234B, 234C and 234D of the Act is unjustified. 4. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified. 5. The order passed by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is illegal, invalid and bad in law and required to be quashed.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that

KETAN NATVARLAL SHAH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2013-14

penalty proceedings u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

234B, 234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

234B, 234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

234B, 234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera

SHRI VINAYAK RATILAL MEHTA,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.778 & 724/Srt/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Vinayak Ratilal Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer, A-2, Sundaram Society, Gnfc To Ward-1, Surat. Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch 392011 [Pan: Afqpm6438M The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Vinayak Ratilal Mehta A-2, Ward-1, Surat. Sundaram Society, Gnfc To Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch 392011 [Pan: Afqpm6438M अपीलाथ" / Assessee ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr

234B, 234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 4. The appeal filed

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, VADODARA vs. SHRI VINAYAK RATILAL MEHTA,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.778 & 724/Srt/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Vinayak Ratilal Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer, A-2, Sundaram Society, Gnfc To Ward-1, Surat. Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch 392011 [Pan: Afqpm6438M The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Vinayak Ratilal Mehta A-2, Ward-1, Surat. Sundaram Society, Gnfc To Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch 392011 [Pan: Afqpm6438M अपीलाथ" / Assessee ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr

234B, 234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 4. The appeal filed

GANI MOHAMMAD POPAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3, VAPI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Popat Yasin Abdulganibhai, I.T.O., Son & L/H Of Late Gani Mohammad Ward-3, Vs. Popat, Vapi. Bombay Market, Zanda Chowk, Near S.T. Bus Depot, Vapi. Pan No. Akvpp 0747 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

234B of the Act. 12. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the Id. AO in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. Initially

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

234B, 234C and 234D and when no such interest is chargeable. It may be deleted. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal before him challenging initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground

JAYENDRASINH BHIKHUBHAI SOLANKI,SILVASSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jidicial Member & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Processing Hearing) Jayendrasinh Bhikhubhai Solanki बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, 37/3, Trimurti Bhavan, High School Vs. Income Tax Office, Vee Bee Mall, Faliya, Naroli, Silvassa-396 230 Near Civil Court, Tokarkhada, Silvassa -396 230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Angps 4011 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date

SHRI FARSURAM RATILAL BHAMWALA,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Cit(A) After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

234B of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A.) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Act.” Ground No. 1 4. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action

ABDUL IBRAHIM PATEL,BHARUCH vs. ITO WARD 1(4) BHARUCH (CURRENTLY, ITO WARD 1(1) BHARUCH), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Abdul Ibrahim Patel, Ito Ward 1(4) Bharuch Kadri Travel, Near Water Tank, At (Currently, Ito Ward 1(1) & Post Zanor, Vs. Bharuch), Bharuch-392210. Income Tax Office, Station Road, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Afspp 6042 A Appellant Respondent

u/s 234A 2 Abdul Ibrahim Patel and 234B of the Act totalling to Rs.2,63,800/- which deserves to be deleted in toto. 2. At the very outset, we note from the record that despite issuance of three separate notices as under by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to cause any appearance or compliance before the said authority