BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

43 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi662Mumbai623Jaipur202Ahmedabad175Hyderabad127Bangalore122Raipur118Chennai112Indore87Rajkot68Pune64Chandigarh57Kolkata55Amritsar48Surat43Allahabad42Cochin23Nagpur21Lucknow20Visakhapatnam17Patna16Ranchi14Jabalpur7Guwahati7Cuttack6Agra4Dehradun4Jodhpur4Panaji3Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)57Addition to Income40Penalty26Section 143(3)21Disallowance18Section 14814Section 6814Section 25012Section 254(1)

SHRI VIJAY CHAMPAK PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri O P Meena – Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

section 54F of the Act. As such, the deduction of Rs.52,04,000/- claimed by the assessee u/s 54F is disallowed and added to the total income of 3 Vijay Champak Patel Assessment Year: 2011-12 the assessee. By claiming incorrect deduction, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, for which, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

11
Section 14711
Section 54E11
Deduction10

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

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

ITA 655/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground is allowed.” 17. On consideration of the facts of the assessee’s case and the judicial precedents reproduced above, we are of the considered view that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained. In the present case, the addition made by the Assessing

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 10(5)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

40,518/- is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. I am satisfied that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and therefore penal proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act separately.” 9. The ld Counsel pointed out that during the penalty proceedings, under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

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 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

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

HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1274/SRT/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Ms. Dalzin Madan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)(a)Section 40A(3)(b)

u/s 271(1)(c) on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and confirm the order. Grounds No 1 to 3 are, therefore, dismissed. In the result, the appeal is Dismissed.” 7. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A) upholding the levy of penalty made by the Assessing Officer under

SHRI HARISHKUMAR NAGINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD - 2(3)(6), SURAT

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

ITA 14/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing In Virtual Court) Mohmed Ismail Vakhawala, Vs The Ito, International C/O. Chirag Tambedia & Co., 9, Pruthvi Taxation, Bharuch. Nagar, 1St Floor, Station Road, Bharuch, 392001, Gujarat. [Pan : Abdpv 2440 D] Assessee Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 90

40,05,119/- lying with die department and therefore, it cannot be said that, there is an existence of "tax sought to be evaded" and therefore, the penalty imposed but cannot be quantified in the interest of justice by the learned assessing officer. 2 ITA.14/SRT/2021/ AY.2011-12 Mohmed Ismail Vakhawala 3) It is further submitted that, as per settled position, where

BHUPENDRA MAGANLAL NAIK (HUF),NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO. 1, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am (Physical Hearing) Bhupendra Maganlal Naik (Huf), The Ito, Ward No.1, 29/B, Manglam Bunglow, Navsari. Vs Alka Society, Chhapra Road, Navsari, Gujarat – 396445. Pan : Aaghd1504E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs.1,40,707/- u/s 271(1)(c) without considering the judgement of Honourable Gujarat – Tribunals/High Court in our submissions and also other points. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeals.” 2 Bhupendra Magnalal Naik (HUF) 3. Brief facts of the cases are that the assessee while filing return

SUDHIR BHUPENDRA DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT. TAX), SURAT

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

ITA 92/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.92/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sudhir Bhupendra Desai Income Tax Officer, (Int. Tax), 106, ‘Shriyam’, Nehru Nagar, Room No.107, 1St Floor, Vs Ichhanath, Svr College, S.O., Income-Tax Office, Surat Surat-395007 Anavil Business Centre, Pan No: Axdpd 7887 Q Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Sudhir B Desai (2) The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the circumstances of the appellant of he being Non-resident Indian and his bona fides. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee

UTKARSH VASANTKUMAR MEHTA,SILVASSA vs. DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

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

ITA 1192/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

40, Standard House, Vapi. Danuyog Sahakari Sang Pipara, Vs Silvasa-369230 [PAN : AACPM 6232 E] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Gopalakrishnan Aiyar, CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Mukesh Jain– Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 17.02.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of pronouncement 17.02.2025 Order under section

LATE NOORULKALAM ABDULMAJID SHAIKH REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS SON HUSNEJAMAL NURULKALAM SHAIKH,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-3(2)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 140/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Virtual hearing) Late Noorulkalam Abdulmajid Shaikh I.T.O., represented through his son Ward-3(2)(1), Vs. Husnejamal Nurulkalam Shaikh, Surat. (PAN: IAHPS 9546 C) 313, Phoolwadi, Survey No. 734, Saheb Telecom, Singanpore, Bharimata Road, Ved Road, Surat-395004. PAN No. AZVPS 7495 K Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Hiren Vepari, CA Department represented

LATE NOORULKALAM ABDULMAJID SHAIKH REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS SON HUSNEJAMAL NURULKALAM SHAIKH,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-3(2)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 139/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Virtual hearing) Late Noorulkalam Abdulmajid Shaikh I.T.O., represented through his son Ward-3(2)(1), Vs. Husnejamal Nurulkalam Shaikh, Surat. (PAN: IAHPS 9546 C) 313, Phoolwadi, Survey No. 734, Saheb Telecom, Singanpore, Bharimata Road, Ved Road, Surat-395004. PAN No. AZVPS 7495 K Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Hiren Vepari, CA Department represented

THE ITO, WARD -1,, SURAT vs. SHREE MADHI SURALI VIBHAG NAGRIK SAHAKARI DHIRAN MANDLI LTD., SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 612/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.612/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik, Ward-1, Bardoli. Sahakari Dhiran Mandli Ltd., Madhi, Tal.Bardoli, Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aadas 5644 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Shaunak Zaveri– Ca & Shri Yogesh Gamit - Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 271ESection 274

271 E of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2010-11. 5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed this appeal before this Tribunal on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. All the grounds raised by the Revenue are inter-related and inter-connected and relates to challenging the order of ld.CIT(A) in deleting penalty levied u/s.271D & 271E of the Income

DINABEN DILIPKUMAR PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

ITA 69/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Physical hearing) Dinaben Dilipkumar Patel, I.T.O., C/o- Hitendra Desai, 48/49, Ward-2, Vs. Bandhan, Patel Nagar Society, Navsari. Chhapra Road, Navsari-396445. PAN No. AAVPP 5860 A Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Darshit J Naik, CA & Shri Jairaj M Naik, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23/03/2023

DINABEN DILIPKUMAR PATEL,NA vs. ASRIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

ITA 337/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Physical hearing) Dinaben Dilipkumar Patel, I.T.O., C/o- Hitendra Desai, 48/49, Ward-2, Vs. Bandhan, Patel Nagar Society, Navsari. Chhapra Road, Navsari-396445. PAN No. AAVPP 5860 A Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Darshit J Naik, CA & Shri Jairaj M Naik, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23/03/2023

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. MS. JANANI EXPORTS, MUMBAI

ITA 604/SRT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.604/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year:2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Acit, Vs. M/S Janani Exports, Central Circle – 2, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Surat Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.9, 10 & 19/Srt/2024 (Ays:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19) Acit, Vs. M/S Janani Exports, Central Circle – 2, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Surat Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.20 To 22/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2013-14 To 2015-16) M/S Janani Exports, Vs. Acit, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Central Circle – 2, Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri Surat (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.35 To 38/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2016-17 To 2019-20) M/S Janani Exports, Vs. Acit, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Central Circle – 2, Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri Surat (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections 139 to 158 of the Act. The special procedure for assessment of search case under Chapter XIV-B u/s 158B to BI for search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and requisition u/s 132A continued till 31st May, 2003. Subsequently, assessment in case of search or requisition is carried out u/s 153A, 153B, 153C and 153D

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

ITA 195/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

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

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

ITA 193/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

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

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

ITA 194/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40ASection 68

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

DHARMESH DAMJIBHAI PATOLIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD2(2)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 487/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Dharmesh Damjibhai Patoliya Vs. Ito, 101 Gandamaya Apartment Ward – 2(2)(1), Matrukrupa Society, Kamrej Surat Charrasta Opp. Azim Hospital, Tal: Kamrej, Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahzpp1276F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 253(3)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act were clearly attracted in the present case. The AO asked the assessee as ITA No.487/SRT/2024/AY.2014-15 Dharmesh D Patoliya to why the interest should not be disallowed. In absence of any supporting evidence in support of the reply by the assessee, the AO had disallowed interest expenses of Rs.23,69,338/- u/s 40

SAGAR EMBROTECH,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1(2), SURAT

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

ITA 392/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat04 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Sagar Embrotech, A.C.I.T., 94, Village Popada Hojiwala Circle-1(2), Vs. Industrial Estate, Gate No. 2, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Sachin Palsana Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-394230. Pan No. Abrfs 9325 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to the assessee and passed ex parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back