JAYANTILAL ARJUNHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 & 140/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jayantilal Arjunbhai Patel, D.C.I.T., 37, Shreeji Plaza, Opera Central Circle-1, Vs. House, Mumbai-400004. Surat. Pan No. Adwpp 0386 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

U/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts

JAYANTILAL ARJUNHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 & 140/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jayantilal Arjunbhai Patel, D.C.I.T., 37, Shreeji Plaza, Opera Central Circle-1, Vs. House, Mumbai-400004. Surat. Pan No. Adwpp 0386 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

U/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts

JAYANTILAL ARJUNHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 & 140/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jayantilal Arjunbhai Patel, D.C.I.T., 37, Shreeji Plaza, Opera Central Circle-1, Vs. House, Mumbai-400004. Surat. Pan No. Adwpp 0386 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

U/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts

JAYANTILAL ARJUNHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 & 140/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jayantilal Arjunbhai Patel, D.C.I.T., 37, Shreeji Plaza, Opera Central Circle-1, Vs. House, Mumbai-400004. Surat. Pan No. Adwpp 0386 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

U/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts

JAYANTILAL ARJUNHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 & 140/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jayantilal Arjunbhai Patel, D.C.I.T., 37, Shreeji Plaza, Opera Central Circle-1, Vs. House, Mumbai-400004. Surat. Pan No. Adwpp 0386 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

U/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts

JAYANTILAL ARJUNHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No. 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 & 140/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Jayantilal Arjunbhai Patel, D.C.I.T., 37, Shreeji Plaza, Opera Central Circle-1, Vs. House, Mumbai-400004. Surat. Pan No. Adwpp 0386 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

U/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

44-A, Suryapur Society, Ward-1(2)(2), Opp. Jain Temple, Rander Road, Surat Surat-395002 Current Jurisdiction Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat [PAN No.AFSPS3691C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Dalzin Madan, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR 26.03.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 09.04.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL

PRAMOD N. PRAJAPATI,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2457 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2456 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 1998-1999. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in treating finding in assessment proceedings as sole basis of penalty without anything more as held in Jain Bros. Vs Union of India 77 ITR 107 (SC). 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts

RAJVI CORPORATION,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. Rajvi Corporation, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(2)(2), D-3, Om Final Plot No. 108, Bombay Surat. Food Compound Kasanagar Road, Nr. Idbi Bank Katargam, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofr0631E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ronak Parekh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A),-3/10473/2016-17 Dated 19.07.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessees are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.2,66,821/- u/s

BASANTILAL TARBA,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-3(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.512/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Bansntilal Tarba Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), बनाम/ 429/1023, Sundarnagar, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs. Ahimsa Circle, Bhilwara, Surat-395 001 Rajasthan- 311 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afipt 1037 P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 24.01.2024 by the National Face Less Appeal Centre (NFAC),Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s. 144 r.w.s

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty of Rs. 1,62,407/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that there is no neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craved

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty of Rs. 1,62,407/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that there is no neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craved

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty of Rs. 1,62,407/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that there is no neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craved

HIMMATBHAI NATHABHAI RAKHOLIA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.493/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Hybrid Hearing) Himmatbhai Nathabhai Rakholia, बनाम/ Ito, Vs. 1St Floor Shreenath Estate Nana Ward- 3(3)(2), Varachha, Surat Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaqpr4308C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/11/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 20.03.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 4, Surat [in short, “CIT(A)”] for assessment year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

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

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

44,000/- (cash deposit)\nand Rs.2,45,725/- (credit entries), totaling to Rs.12,89,725/- was treated\nas unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and added to his income.\nLater on, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also\ninitiated for concealment of income. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s\n271(1)(c) r.w.s

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

u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of deductions & addition on STCG on sale of shares, without appreciating that the assessee had no mens rea or malafide intention. The disallowance or such addition arose due to non-filing of the return, not due to concealment of income. 4. On the facts and in the 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

u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of deductions & addition on STCG on sale of shares, without appreciating that the assessee had no mens rea or malafide intention. The disallowance or such addition arose due to non-filing of the return, not due to concealment of income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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