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)

41,718/-u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty levied by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal

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)

41,718/-u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty levied by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal

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)

41,718/-u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty levied by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal

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)

41,718/-u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 4. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty levied by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal

SHRI JERAMBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI THESIA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1574/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Jerambhai Parsottambhai V The Deputy Commissioner Thesia, A-17, Vithal Nagar, S Of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat. Hirabaug, Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aampt 5791 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R.Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

section 271 (l)(c). It is further submitted here that if explanation of assessee remains unproved but not disproved by assessing officer, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be imposed. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on jurisdictional Gujarat High Court decision in case of National Textiles v. CIT (24? ITR 125) and CIT v. Jalaram

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

41,718/-u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961\n4. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty levied by assessing officer and\nconfirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may please be deleted.\n5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or\nin the course of hearing of the appeal

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

penalty to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- u/s. 271 – I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, as well as law on the subject, The Learned CIT(A) NFAC Delhi erred in confirming the addition made by learned A.O.” 3. Succinct facts are that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing

VIMAL CHAND GOKHAROO,SURAT vs. ITO 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 3. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

VIMAL CHAND GOKHAROO,SURAT vs. ITO 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 3. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

VIMAL CHAND GOKHAROO,SURAT vs. ITO 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 3. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 3,24,52,950/- without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has correctly held that the assessee has failed to substantiate the transactions claimed in its return of income thereby evaded taxes to that extent? d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 3,24,52,950/- without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has correctly held that the assessee has failed to substantiate the transactions claimed in its return of income thereby evaded taxes to that extent? d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), both dated 06.02.2025 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. ITA No.329/SRT/2025 pertains to the quantum appeal whereas ITA No. 330/SRT/2025 is in respect of the consequential penalty order u/s 271

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), both dated 06.02.2025 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. ITA No.329/SRT/2025 pertains to the quantum appeal whereas ITA No. 330/SRT/2025 is in respect of the consequential penalty order u/s 271

ASHISH JAYANTILAL PANDYA,SURAT vs. ITO,WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.629/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Ashish Jayantilal Pandya The Ito, Vs. G/25, Shubhlaxmi Complex, Near Ward - 1(3)(1), Agresan Bhavan, City Light Road, Surat Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavpp8182D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2025

41,520/- as against returned income of Rs.3,56,820/-. The AO had also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against the order of AO, which was dismissed by the CIT(A). Thereafter, the AO passed order u/s 271

M/S. SHREE LAXMI DEVELOPERS,SILVASSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA , SILVASSA

penalty\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14 passed by the Ld.\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)"), National\nFaceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide separate orders\ndated 30.40.2024 & 25.04.2024. Since common facts and issues for\nconsideration are involved for both the years under consideration, all the\nappeals filed

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

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

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

M/S. SHREE LAXMI DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA, SILVASSA

penalty\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14 passed by the Ld.\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)"), National\nFaceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide separate orders\ndated 30.40.2024 & 25.04.2024. Since common facts and issues for\nconsideration are involved for both the years under consideration, all the\nappeals filed