THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. GOKULDHAM ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

270, Baben, B/h Baben lake, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat- 395 001. . Bardoli, Surat – 394 602. [PAN: ABXFS 3721 N] 2 3176/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner V Astha Developers, of Income Tax, Circle – s A/57, Anadhara Society, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat . Nr Anandhara Ashram, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395 006. [PAN: AARFA 4867 C] 3 3177/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),,, SURAT vs. M/S. ASTHA DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

270, Baben, B/h Baben lake, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat- 395 001. . Bardoli, Surat – 394 602. [PAN: ABXFS 3721 N] 2 3176/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner V Astha Developers, of Income Tax, Circle – s A/57, Anadhara Society, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat . Nr Anandhara Ashram, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395 006. [PAN: AARFA 4867 C] 3 3177/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner

THE ITO, WARD-1,, BARDOLI vs. M/S. RAM CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

270, Baben, B/h Baben lake, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat- 395 001. . Bardoli, Surat – 394 602. [PAN: ABXFS 3721 N] 2 3176/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner V Astha Developers, of Income Tax, Circle – s A/57, Anadhara Society, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat . Nr Anandhara Ashram, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395 006. [PAN: AARFA 4867 C] 3 3177/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. R.L.B. DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

270, Baben, B/h Baben lake, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat- 395 001. . Bardoli, Surat – 394 602. [PAN: ABXFS 3721 N] 2 3176/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner V Astha Developers, of Income Tax, Circle – s A/57, Anadhara Society, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat . Nr Anandhara Ashram, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395 006. [PAN: AARFA 4867 C] 3 3177/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHUBH CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

270, Baben, B/h Baben lake, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat- 395 001. . Bardoli, Surat – 394 602. [PAN: ABXFS 3721 N] 2 3176/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner V Astha Developers, of Income Tax, Circle – s A/57, Anadhara Society, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat . Nr Anandhara Ashram, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395 006. [PAN: AARFA 4867 C] 3 3177/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(5),, SURAT vs. M/S. GANGOTRI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

270, Baben, B/h Baben lake, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat- 395 001. . Bardoli, Surat – 394 602. [PAN: ABXFS 3721 N] 2 3176/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner V Astha Developers, of Income Tax, Circle – s A/57, Anadhara Society, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat . Nr Anandhara Ashram, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395 006. [PAN: AARFA 4867 C] 3 3177/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. BALAJI ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

270, Baben, B/h Baben lake, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat- 395 001. . Bardoli, Surat – 394 602. [PAN: ABXFS 3721 N] 2 3176/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner V Astha Developers, of Income Tax, Circle – s A/57, Anadhara Society, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat . Nr Anandhara Ashram, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395 006. [PAN: AARFA 4867 C] 3 3177/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. ANJANI DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

270, Baben, B/h Baben lake, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat- 395 001. . Bardoli, Surat – 394 602. [PAN: ABXFS 3721 N] 2 3176/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner V Astha Developers, of Income Tax, Circle – s A/57, Anadhara Society, A.Y. 2012-13 2(3), Surat . Nr Anandhara Ashram, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395 006. [PAN: AARFA 4867 C] 3 3177/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner

BASANT SEKHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Hybrid hearing) Basant Sekhani, I.T.O., 202, Matru Ashish, Kazis, Gopipura, Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Surat, Gujarat-395001. Surat. PAN No. AVOPS 2826 F Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Ms. Chaitali Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of institution of appeals 25/08/2023 Date of hearing 01/11/2023 Date of pronouncement

BASANT SEKHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Hybrid hearing) Basant Sekhani, I.T.O., 202, Matru Ashish, Kazis, Gopipura, Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Surat, Gujarat-395001. Surat. PAN No. AVOPS 2826 F Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Ms. Chaitali Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of institution of appeals 25/08/2023 Date of hearing 01/11/2023 Date of pronouncement

ALPESH UMESHCHANDRA,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-1(2) (1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

270(1)(c) initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act, hence, the assessment order passed by the AO on dated 03/03/2023 u/s 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence, the proceedings so initiated u/s 263 of the Act and the impugned order passed u/s- 263 of the Act. deserves to be quashed

HIMMATBHAI NATHABHAI RAKHOLIA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.493/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Hybrid Hearing) Himmatbhai Nathabhai Rakholia, बनाम/ Ito, Vs. 1St Floor Shreenath Estate Nana Ward- 3(3)(2), Varachha, Surat Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaqpr4308C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/11/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 20.03.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 4, Surat [in short, “CIT(A)”] for assessment year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

SANJAY DAMJIBHAI DOMADIYA,SURAT vs. I.T.O. WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, Ground No.1 of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.180/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay D Domadiya Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), Plot No.C-10/11, Sachin Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs. Udhyog Nagar, Sachin- Surat-395002 Palsana Road, Sachin, Surat- 394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aftpd 6992 G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

270 ITR 235 (Raj) & Ajay Goyal Vs. ITO (99 TTJ 164) – it was held that past years profit declared by the assessee is the best guide for application of GP/NP Rate. During the assessment proceedings, Ld.AR of the assessee provided the comparative figures of GP/NP for various years as under:- YEAR

BILAKHIA HOLDING P LTD,VAPI vs. THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A’S No.181 & 182/Srt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Bilakhia Holding P Ltd., Vs The Assistant Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, . Commissioner Of Income Chala, Surat – 394 520. Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Gopalakrishnan Aiyer – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Usha Shrote – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 19.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Memeber: 1. Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here In After Referred To As The ‘Act’).

271(1)(c) of the Act TO THE TUNE OF Rs.41,81,930/-. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who has confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO observing as follows: “considering the above factual and legal positions, it is apparent that the appellant

BILAKHIA HOLDING P LTD,VAPI vs. THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A’S No.181 & 182/Srt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Bilakhia Holding P Ltd., Vs The Assistant Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, . Commissioner Of Income Chala, Surat – 394 520. Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Gopalakrishnan Aiyer – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Usha Shrote – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 19.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Memeber: 1. Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here In After Referred To As The ‘Act’).

271(1)(c) of the Act TO THE TUNE OF Rs.41,81,930/-. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who has confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO observing as follows: “considering the above factual and legal positions, it is apparent that the appellant

SHRI KAMREJ VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4),, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1735 & 1740/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Mandli Ltd., Surat. At & Post Sayan, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4058F (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Khand Mandli Ltd., Surat. N.H. No.8, Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist: Surat, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4817N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hence the assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, to the tune of Rs.15,37,079/-, on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of income. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

SHREE SAYAN VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4),, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1735 & 1740/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Mandli Ltd., Surat. At & Post Sayan, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4058F (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Khand Mandli Ltd., Surat. N.H. No.8, Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist: Surat, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4817N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hence the assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, to the tune of Rs.15,37,079/-, on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of income. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act.” 4. First, we shall adjudicate the Summarized and concise grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA No.195/SRT/2022, where books of accounts of assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer u/s 145(3) of the Act. The summarized and concise ground No.1 is reproduced below for ready