SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEWA MANDAL TRUST,UNA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.204/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Sewa Vs. The Ito, Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘Nfac), Delhi, In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036051308(1) Dated 30.09.2021, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

u/s 11(6) of the Act, it had claimed depreciation in its return of income filed. The assessee also submitted that the depreciation was shown in the Profit and Loss account of the trust following the normal account practices. As per the assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings it is noticed that the assessee trust had claimed depreciation

PRAMOD N. PRAJAPATI,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2457 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2456 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 1998-1999. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in treating finding in assessment proceedings as sole basis of penalty without anything more as held in Jain Bros. Vs Union of India 77 ITR 107 (SC). 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts

SMT. URVASHI SANJAYKUMAR GUPTA,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainismt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta, I.T.O., Ratna Vihar Apartment, New City Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Light, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Aanpg 4855 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore, prayed that addition made by assessing officer & confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted. Smt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta Vs ITO 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal

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

In the result the ground No

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. Assessee craves leave to reserve right to add to, alter or amend any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing and to produce such further evidence, documents and papers in support of claim.” 3.Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee

KANAIYALAL LABHUBHAI NAROLA,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurpose

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As discussed earlier,\nthe AO made the addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act towards the receipt\nof repayment of loan of Rs.3,00,00,000/- i.e., Rs.2,50,00,000/- from Happy Home\nCorporation and Rs.50,00,000/- from Shri Shantilal Sutariya on 09.09.2013. During\nthe

GAURAVA MISHRA,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(8), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Gaurav Mishra, Vs. Ito, Present Address: - Ward -3 (2)(8), 80, Bayshore Road, Unit No.28, Surat (Costa Del Sol), Singapore – 46992 Permanent Address: 605, Spathik Shilla, Sundar Nagar Purani Basti, So Raipur – 492001, C.G., India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amkpm6042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Veekass Sharma, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also separately initiated for concealment of income. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal was delayed by 30 days before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) condoned the delay and adjudicate of the issue. The appellant raised various grounds

VANMALIBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL L/H RANJANBEN DEEPAKBHAI PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 5, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.345/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Vanmalibhai Muljibhai Patel, Vs. Ito, L/H Of Ranjanben Deepakbhai Patel Ward - 5, 16, Shrinikunj Society, Ashabaug, Navsari Navsari - 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abjpp3114G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act was also separately initiated. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The appellant raised various grounds of appeal before the CIT(A), which are at pages 2 of the appellate order. The CIT(A) reproduced the submission of the appellant, which

KEVALRAM LALARAM CHAUDHARI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.210/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Kevalram Lalaram Chaudhari, Vs. Ito, 275, Bhagirath Nagar – 2, Anjani Ward – 3(3)(3), Road, Varachha Road, Surat – Surat 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahrpc3926F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 and 271F r.w.s. 274 of the Act were also initiated by the AO. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed this appeal before the CIT(A). He issued 4 notices fixing the hearing on 22.01.2021, 27.06.2023, 05.07.2023, 10.11.2023, 12.11.2024 and 28.11.2024. All the notices were duly served electronically

PRIME CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Prime Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs. Acit, Khatodra, Ring Road, Surat – Circle-1(1)(1), 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcp7117M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

section 151 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) observed that as per NMS data, the assessee had entered into the following bank transactions: (i) cash transactions of Rs.6,00,000/-, (ii) cash deposits of Rs.62,92,50,000/- in savings bank account and (iii) cash deposits of Rs.61,01,50,000/- with banking companies. Though there

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

Penalty notice u/s. 271(l)(b) was also issued on 08.09.2017. The assessee with other persons have transferred two non- agricultural land to Shanti Integrated Textile Park Pvt. Ltd. and Assessee’s share was Rs.2.28,72,600. The assessee has not offered any capital gain or business income on sale of above land. The assessee vide letter dated 22nd December

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

251 & 252/SRT/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court) Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandali Ltd., Ward-1(2), Bharuch. At – Pandvai, Tal. Hansot, Dist. Bharuch, 394 810. PAN : AAAAS1760N APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri S N Soparkar -Sr. Advocate With Ms Urvashi Shodhan Advocate Respondent by Shri O P Singh

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

251 & 252/SRT/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court) Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandali Ltd., Ward-1(2), Bharuch. At – Pandvai, Tal. Hansot, Dist. Bharuch, 394 810. PAN : AAAAS1760N APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri S N Soparkar -Sr. Advocate With Ms Urvashi Shodhan Advocate Respondent by Shri O P Singh

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDALI LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

251 & 252/SRT/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court) Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandali Ltd., Ward-1(2), Bharuch. At – Pandvai, Tal. Hansot, Dist. Bharuch, 394 810. PAN : AAAAS1760N APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri S N Soparkar -Sr. Advocate With Ms Urvashi Shodhan Advocate Respondent by Shri O P Singh