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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 14.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AYs) 2012-13 and 2013-14. For AY.2012-13, the assessee has filed appeals against orders of CIT(A) against the assessment order passed u/s

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 14.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AYs) 2012-13 and 2013-14. For AY.2012-13, the assessee has filed appeals against orders of CIT(A) against the assessment order passed u/s

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 14.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AYs) 2012-13 and 2013-14. For AY.2012-13, the assessee has filed appeals against orders of CIT(A) against the assessment order passed u/s

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 14.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AYs) 2012-13 and 2013-14. For AY.2012-13, the assessee has filed appeals against orders of CIT(A) against the assessment order passed u/s

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.931 To 934 & 935 To 936/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Gauravkumar Manilal Patel, Vs. The Ito, 1, Post: Hathuka, Kanbi Faliya, Tal: Ward – 3(2)(7), Valod, Tapi - 394640 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aogpp5609G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 14.08.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AYs) 2012-13 and 2013-14. For AY.2012-13, the assessee has filed appeals against orders of CIT(A) against the assessment order passed u/s

GAURAVKUMAR MANILAL PATEL,TAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is restricted to Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-\nlevied by the AO. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.\n23.\nIn the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.\nOrder is pronounced in the open court on 18/02/2024\nSd/-\n(PAWAN SINGH)\nJUDICIAL MEMBER\nSd/-\n(BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSurat\nदिनांक

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

PANKAJKUMAR SEVANTILAL PARMAR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(b) of the Act and ITA No.214/SRT/2021 relates to penalty levied under section 271F of the Act. In all appeals, facts are common, the Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) passed ex parte order ITA Nos.205,206, 212-214/SRT/2021 (A.Y10-11) Pankajkumar S Parmar dismissing the appeal in limine. Therefore, all appeals with the consent of parties, all are clubbed

PANKAJKUMAR SEVANTILAL PARMAR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(b) of the Act and ITA No.214/SRT/2021 relates to penalty levied under section 271F of the Act. In all appeals, facts are common, the Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) passed ex parte order ITA Nos.205,206, 212-214/SRT/2021 (A.Y10-11) Pankajkumar S Parmar dismissing the appeal in limine. Therefore, all appeals with the consent of parties, all are clubbed

PANKAJKUMAR SEVANTILAL PARMAR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(b) of the Act and ITA No.214/SRT/2021 relates to penalty levied under section 271F of the Act. In all appeals, facts are common, the Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) passed ex parte order ITA Nos.205,206, 212-214/SRT/2021 (A.Y10-11) Pankajkumar S Parmar dismissing the appeal in limine. Therefore, all appeals with the consent of parties, all are clubbed

PANKAJKUMAR SEVANTILAL PARMAR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(b) of the Act and ITA No.214/SRT/2021 relates to penalty levied under section 271F of the Act. In all appeals, facts are common, the Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) passed ex parte order ITA Nos.205,206, 212-214/SRT/2021 (A.Y10-11) Pankajkumar S Parmar dismissing the appeal in limine. Therefore, all appeals with the consent of parties, all are clubbed