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

R.S. TRADELINK PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

iii) Maximum penalty leviable Rs.9,39,94,410/- 10. But considering the unavoidable absence of director who manages the company affairs I hereby levy a penalty of Rs.2,13,31,470/- being minimum penalty @100% of the tax sought to be evaded u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order under section 271

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

PAL GRAM HINDU SARVAJANIK TRUST,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.536/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pal Gram Hindu Sarvajanik Trust, V The Income Tax Officer, At 7 Post : Pal, Tal. Choryasi, Exemption Ward, Surat. S. Dist – Surat – 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatp 2544 G (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat [Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 30.05.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of 1The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 24.03.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “[1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. [2] With The Assessing Officer Failing To Specify In The Assessment Order As To Whether The Proceedings Were Initiated For Concealing Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, The Penalty Order Was Required To Be Knocked Down In View Of The Decision Of The Gujarat High Court In Case Of Sorathia Engineering Co. Ltd. (282-Itr-642). [3] The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Vary Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

u/s 11(2) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that penalty levied by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act is bad in law and needs to be deleted. 10. If the Income Tax Act is analysed, it is seen that there are three different ways in which the statutory requirements are enforced

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(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 proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income.” 11. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the issue has been discussed and examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order, dated 30.03.2015 for assessment order 2012-13, therefore the Assessing Officer should not have recorded reasons again

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 proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income.” 11. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the issue has been discussed and examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order, dated 30.03.2015 for assessment order 2012-13, therefore the Assessing Officer should not have recorded reasons again

AKSHAR GEMS,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) Akshar Gems, Assistant Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Shreeji Diamond Apartment, Vs. Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Nandu Doshi Ni Wadi, Vastadevdi Road, Aaykar Bhavan Nr.Majura Katargam, Surat – 395004 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarfa3697A Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

iii) On going through the above rule, it is clear that the information is required to be submitted under Rule 37BB only if the payments are chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, it may be noted that Rule 37 BB is not in line with the amended provision of Section

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs. THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.323 To 327/Srt/2018 Ays: (2005-06 To 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri A. Gopalkrishnan, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 10/10/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022

26(e) of Form No. 10CCB that you have not used machinery or plant for business manufactured goods.” 6. However, the assessee did not make compliance of the above show cause notice, therefore Assessing Officer considering the material available on record, held that assessee is not engaged in the manufacturing process, not employed workers and not used machinery, therefore assessees

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs. THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.323 To 327/Srt/2018 Ays: (2005-06 To 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri A. Gopalkrishnan, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 10/10/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022

26(e) of Form No. 10CCB that you have not used machinery or plant for business manufactured goods.” 6. However, the assessee did not make compliance of the above show cause notice, therefore Assessing Officer considering the material available on record, held that assessee is not engaged in the manufacturing process, not employed workers and not used machinery, therefore assessees

N CORE CABLES,,DAMAN vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.323 To 327/Srt/2018 Ays: (2005-06 To 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri A. Gopalkrishnan, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 10/10/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022

26(e) of Form No. 10CCB that you have not used machinery or plant for business manufactured goods.” 6. However, the assessee did not make compliance of the above show cause notice, therefore Assessing Officer considering the material available on record, held that assessee is not engaged in the manufacturing process, not employed workers and not used machinery, therefore assessees

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs. THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.323 To 327/Srt/2018 Ays: (2005-06 To 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri A. Gopalkrishnan, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 10/10/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022

26(e) of Form No. 10CCB that you have not used machinery or plant for business manufactured goods.” 6. However, the assessee did not make compliance of the above show cause notice, therefore Assessing Officer considering the material available on record, held that assessee is not engaged in the manufacturing process, not employed workers and not used machinery, therefore assessees

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

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

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

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

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

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.14,00,573/- in respect of the addition made on the ground of earning of alleged long term capital gain. 2) It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned penalty levied by the Ld AO be deleted. 3) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete, change

M/S. MAYUR CONSTRUCTION,,VALSAD vs. THE ACIT., VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 1042/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mayur Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad. 110, Amar Chamber,Valsad. S [Pan: Aadfm 9859 L] . अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

271(1)(c). In reply to the show-cause notice, the assessee submitted that assessee has not made any incorrect claim and no inaccurate particulars were furnished. Mere making a claim which is not sustainable in law itself will not account to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. The contention of the assessee was not accepted