PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

50,901/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above addition 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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

50,00,000/- u/s. 54EC of the Act are not accepted. It is clear that the assessee does not fulfill the conditions laid down in section 54EC for claiming benefit of that section. However, deduction u/s. 54EC, to the extent of Rs.50,00,000 /-, which was invested by the assessee on 31.03.2010, i.e. before the date of sale deed

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO,WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

271(1)(c) of the Act, for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17 respectively. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 193/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18): 29. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act for the additions made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the re- assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dated

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. CHHAYA ASSOCIATES,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE BUILDERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE CONSTRUCTION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHAH & DESAI CONSTRUCTION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. PRIME DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. AVANTIS ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHANTINATH DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

u/s. 143[3] dtd. 16.3.2015, which proves that the assessee has no objection to the disclosed income of Rs.3,50,00,000/- being considered as deemed income u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. Hence, logically and inescapably, this case falls within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The case of the assessee clearly attracts the penal provision of section 271