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

26,368). He estimated commission @0.02%, @0.20% and @0.50% on total turnover (excluding import and group turnover), import and the outstanding loan respectively. The AO also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8.1 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). the CIT(A) dismissed

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

26,368). He estimated commission @0.02%, @0.20% and @0.50% on total turnover (excluding import and group turnover), import and the outstanding loan respectively. The AO also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8.1 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). the CIT(A) dismissed

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

26,368). He estimated commission @0.02%, @0.20% and @0.50% on total turnover (excluding import and group turnover), import and the outstanding loan respectively. The AO also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8.1 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). the CIT(A) dismissed

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

26,368). He estimated commission @0.02%, @0.20% and @0.50% on total turnover (excluding import and group turnover), import and the outstanding loan respectively. The AO also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8.1 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). the CIT(A) dismissed

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

26. As the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon`ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhailal Manilal Patel (Supra), hence respectfully following the binding precedent, I delete the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.12,50,901/-. 27. In the result, appeal

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

26. As the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon`ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhailal Manilal Patel (Supra), hence respectfully following the binding precedent, I delete the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.12,50,901/-. 27. In the result, appeal

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

26. As the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon`ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhailal Manilal Patel (Supra), hence respectfully following the binding precedent, I delete the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.12,50,901/-. 27. In the result, appeal

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act imposing minimum penalty of Rs.68,22,30,265/- (@100% of tax sought to be evaded) was passed on 21.09.2022. 26. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication. He granted various opportunities

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act imposing minimum penalty of Rs.68,22,30,265/- (@100% of tax sought to be evaded) was passed on 21.09.2022. 26. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication. He granted various opportunities

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act imposing minimum penalty of Rs.68,22,30,265/- (@100% of tax sought to be evaded) was passed on 21.09.2022. 26. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication. He granted various opportunities

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO,WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act imposing minimum penalty of Rs.68,22,30,265/- (@100% of tax sought to be evaded) was passed on 21.09.2022. 26. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication. He granted various opportunities

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act imposing minimum penalty of Rs.68,22,30,265/- (@100% of tax sought to be evaded) was passed on 21.09.2022. 26. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication. He granted various opportunities

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act imposing minimum penalty of Rs.68,22,30,265/- (@100% of tax sought to be evaded) was passed on 21.09.2022. 26. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication. He granted various opportunities

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act imposing minimum penalty of Rs.68,22,30,265/- (@100% of tax sought to be evaded) was passed on 21.09.2022. 26. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication. He granted various opportunities

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act imposing minimum penalty of Rs.68,22,30,265/- (@100% of tax sought to be evaded) was passed on 21.09.2022. 26. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the appeal for adjudication. He granted various opportunities

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण . वष" /A Y: 1 1992/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs Imperial Developers, Of Income Tax, . ‘Blossom’ Near Vesu Canal A.Y. 2013-14 Central Opp.Dps School, Circle-3, Surat – 395 Vesu, Surat. 001. [Pan: Aadfi 5694 R] िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah - Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Srinivas T.Bidari – Sr.Dr

26-02-2015 and in this regard, you are once again granted an opportunity to put forth your case before the said penalty proceedings are finalized and therefore, the appellant was requested to attend the office of the undersigned in person or through its AR on 29-07- 2015 stating that in case of failure it will be decided that

KHODIYAR ORGANISERS, SURAT,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Khodiyar Organisers, Vs. Acit, Central Plaza, Near Om Terrace, Circle – 2(3), New City Light Road, Surat – Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfk1498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘in short, the Act’) dated 27.12.2023 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) - 11, Ahmedabad [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well

PARTHKUMAR KAUSHIKBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD2(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(b) of the Act. Regarding the legal proposition that where the assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144 and the non- compliance is deemed to have been waived, the ld. CIT(A) held that the said legal proposition is not applicable in the present case because in this case, penalty is levied

HITESHKUMAR VALJIBHAI KYADA,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(b) of the Act. Regarding the legal proposition that where the assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144 and the non- compliance is deemed to have been waived, the ld. CIT(A) held that the said legal proposition is not applicable in the present case because in this case, penalty is levied