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)

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act on 13.02.2017. 5. During the penalty proceedings, the assessing officer held that neither at the time of assessment proceedings nor at the time of penalty proceedings, the assessee could prove that there was no concealment. The Ld. CIT(A),Valsad has also confirmed the addition of Rs.1,43,622/-, and Rs.15

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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad with regards to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on addition made of 5% of total purchase value to the tune of Rs. 43

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

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

43(5) came into effect from AY 2006-07 which states '. an eligible transaction in respect of trading in derivatives referred to in the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 carried out in a recognized stock exchange shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction Loss occurred under Future and Options contract is 'derivate' and hence, can be claimed

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

43(5) came into effect from AY 2006-07 which states '. an eligible transaction in respect of trading in derivatives referred to in the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 carried out in a recognized stock exchange shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction Loss occurred under Future and Options contract is 'derivate' and hence, can be claimed

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

43(5) came into effect from AY 2006-07 which states '. an eligible transaction in respect of trading in derivatives referred to in the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 carried out in a recognized stock exchange shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction Loss occurred under Future and Options contract is 'derivate' and hence, can be claimed

V. M. MANIYAR EXPORTS,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1368/Srt/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) V.M.Maniyar Exports Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Plot No.103-104, Surat Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat Vs. Special Economic Zone, Gidc, Sachin,Surat-394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifv 6884 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

5 to Section 32(1) of the Act, depreciation shall be granted, whether or not the assessee claims the same. The AO accordingly reduced profit by Rs.8,43,752/- and deduction was restricted to Rs.21,43,313/- instead of Rs.29,58,065/-. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S SHI vs. HAKTI ORGANIZERS,BARDOLIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S. Shiv Shakti Organizers, The Income Tax Officer, Mudit Palace, Station Road, Ward-1, Bardoli. Vs. Bardoli. E-Mail:Akparekh_1989@Yahoo.Com Pan: Aatfs 5964 Q Applicant Respondent

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the detailed explanation with evidences submitted by Appellant. The Penalty of Rs. 1,43,407/- should therefore, be deleted. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal before hearing.” Shiv Shakti Organizers (AY 2010-11) 2. Brief facts of the assessee

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

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.On the facts in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the income Tax (Appeals) has not provided the ample opportunities to her the case and passed ex-arte order, hence the case may please be allowed and set aside

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

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.On the facts in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the income Tax (Appeals) has not provided the ample opportunities to her the case and passed ex-arte order, hence the case may please be allowed and set aside

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

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.On the facts in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the income Tax (Appeals) has not provided the ample opportunities to her the case and passed ex-arte order, hence the case may please be allowed and set aside

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

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.On the facts in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the income Tax (Appeals) has not provided the ample opportunities to her the case and passed ex-arte order, hence the case may please be allowed and set aside

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

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.On the facts in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the income Tax (Appeals) has not provided the ample opportunities to her the case and passed ex-arte order, hence the case may please be allowed and set aside

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

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

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

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