SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 271 of the Act is clearly applicable to the case of the assessee for furnishing in accurate particulars of income and concealing the income for which assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, assessing officer imposed penalty of Rs.5,36

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)

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, in the assessment order in respect of long term capital gain only for one limb, that is, concealment of income, vide para 9 of assessment order. However, in the penalty order under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty for both limbs, that is, concealment

HASMUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,VAPI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 27.03.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) taking concealed income at Rs.2,81,36

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved for both the years under consideration, both appeals filed by the assessee are taken up together. We shall first deal with ITA No. 1062/Srt/2024 (A.Y. 2007-08) 2. The Department raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.1062&1068/Srt/2024 ITO vs. Borda

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since common facts and issues for consideration are involved for both the years under consideration, both appeals filed by the assessee are taken up together. We shall first deal with ITA No. 1062/Srt/2024 (A.Y. 2007-08) 2. The Department raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.1062&1068/Srt/2024 ITO vs. Borda

BAYER VAPI PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,),VAPI vs. THE A CIT., VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.1688/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bayer Vapi Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Income Tax, Private Limited), Plot No.306/3, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Phase-Ii, Vapi – 396 195, Gujarat. [Pan: Aabcb 2100 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul K Patel, Advocate & Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca Shri Prasenjit Singh – Cit(Dr) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 18.07.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 27.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The 1. Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Valsad, Valsad(In Short “The Cit(A)”) Dated 31.03.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita 2. No.1688/Ahd/2014 Read As Under : “01. The Appellant Company Has Neither Concealed Its Income Nor Submitted Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & The Adjustments/ Additions Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Facts Of The Case & Law & Deserves To Be Deleted. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.Acit-Vapi/Ita No.1688/Ahd/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 2 Of 20

36,015/- 3. Upward adjustment made on account TPO order : Rs.34,68,000/- 4. Reallocation of staff welfare expenses between Bilag unit and BEOU unit – Rs.72,846/-. 5. Reallocation of Oil & Petrol expenses between Bilag Unit and BEOU unit : - Rs.41,632/- 6. Depreciation on excess payment made towards purchase of intangible asset – Rs.7,95,27,784/- 7. Legal & Professional Fees

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

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S J.K. Paper Ltd. Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mill, Vs. Surat. Fort Songadh, Surat. Pan : Aaact 6305 N Appellant Respondednt

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting penalty of Rs.4,21,36,403/-levied

BHUPATBHAI DHANJIBHAI KOTHARI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(1), SURAT

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), filed an appeal before the CIT(A)\non the advice of the new consultant. The CIT(A) reiterated the section\n249(3) of the Act and power of the CIT(A) to condone the delay in\nfiling appeal, which is at para 5.1 of his order. The CIT(A) has placed\nreliance in cases

BHARUCH DISTRICT CO OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,BHARUCH vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) The Bharuch District Co Op Milk A.C.I.T. Producers Union Limited, Circle-1, Vs. Old N.H. 8, Bholav, Bharuch. Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aaaat 1470 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 271(1)(c). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have confirmed the issue/items for which disallowance/additions made in the assessment order are highly debatable and favourable ruling for allowability of the said items as a revenue expenditure are available. The Bharuch District

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

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

1), 129 and show cause notices u/s 148 of the Act were issued but there was non-compliance to the said notices. Hence, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) passed order u/s 144 of the Act because assessee failed to discharge the onus cast on him though he was given 4 ITA Nos.530 & 531/SRT/2024/AYs.2012-13 Balvant Nandlal Talaviya sufficient opportunities

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO WARD-1, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

1), 129 and show cause notices u/s 148 of the Act were issued but there was non-compliance to the said notices. Hence, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) passed order u/s 144 of the Act because assessee failed to discharge the onus cast on him though he was given 4 ITA Nos.530 & 531/SRT/2024/AYs.2012-13 Balvant Nandlal Talaviya sufficient opportunities

SARAS PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,VALSAD vs. THE DY.CIT, VALSAD CIRCLE,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.689/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2007-08 Saras Plywood Products Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.744, New G.I.D.C, Valsad Circle, Valsad. Gundlav, Valsad. Pan: Aahcs 8945G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

36 taxmann.com 361 (Del) Tribunal in which, it was held that very claim is held by High Court to give rise to substantial question of law, then there cannot be any allegation of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of particulars of income in relation to such a claim so as to attract levy of penalty u/s.271(1

M/S. PANCHSHEEL INTERMEDIATES,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Panchsheel Intermediates Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8101, Income Tax, Circle-2(3) Vs. Industrial Estate, Surat Sachin, Surat Pan : Aadfp1002C Appellant Respondednt

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 3.Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” M/s Panchseel Intermediates, Surat 2. Brief

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. M/S. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties