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

section 271(1) (c ) of the Act the assessing officer imposed penalty for both the deductions u/s 54 EC and u/s

YASH BHUPESHBHAI TAMAKUWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(5), NOW INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(2)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.580/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yash Bhupeshbhai Tamakuwala, Vs. The Ito, 1/208, Kharadi Sheri, Nanpura, Ward- 1(2)(6), Surat – 395001. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajypt3602P (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of ITA.580/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 Yash B. Tamakuwala invalid and improper show cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act. 3) Each Ground of appeal is without prejudice to the other grounds of the appeal. 4) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete

JANAKKUMAR MUKUNDPRASAD PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

54,000/-, was made by the assessing officer on estimated basis, treating the income as the unexplained sources. Hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act was also initiated on this estimated addition. 4. Later on, the Assessing Officer has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the above addition. Therefore

SHRI VIJAYSING P. SOLANKI,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.697 & 698/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing)

54, Janak Park Society, Adajan Road, Ward-1(3)(7), Surat. Nr. Badrinarayan Temple, Surat – 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABBPP0996Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Kabra - AR Respondent by : Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 12/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/07/2021 आदेश

MAYUR MATHURDAS PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.697 & 698/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing)

54, Janak Park Society, Adajan Road, Ward-1(3)(7), Surat. Nr. Badrinarayan Temple, Surat – 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABBPP0996Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Kabra - AR Respondent by : Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 12/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/07/2021 आदेश

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

u/s. 132 on or after first day of June, 2007. The search in the impugned case was initiated on 28.01.2010; consequently, whether Explanation-5A is applicable to the facts of this case is to be considered. Explanation 5 has been amended by the Finance Act, 2007 to restrict the application of that explanation to searches initiated before

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

u/s. 132 on or after first day of June, 2007. The search in the impugned case was initiated on 28.01.2010; consequently, whether Explanation-5A is applicable to the facts of this case is to be considered. Explanation 5 has been amended by the Finance Act, 2007 to restrict the application of that explanation to searches initiated before

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 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

RAMESHKUMAR LAXMANLAL SIROYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.48 & 49/Srt/2022 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Rameshkumar Laxmanlal Income Tax Officer, Ward- Siroya, 7/C Supari Baugh 3(2)(6), Anavil Business Vs Mension, Nirmala Niwas, 34 Center, Adajan Hazira Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Road, Adajan, Mumbai-400012 Surat-395 007 Pan : Afaps 0153 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Ld. AO dated 20.04.2017 under VSV which is factually incorrect. ITA Nos.48-49/SRT/2022 (A.Y 09-10) Rameshkumar L Siroya 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that levy of penalty of under section 271(1)(c) on ambiguous notice under section

RAMESHKUMAR LAXMANLAL SIROYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.48 & 49/Srt/2022 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Rameshkumar Laxmanlal Income Tax Officer, Ward- Siroya, 7/C Supari Baugh 3(2)(6), Anavil Business Vs Mension, Nirmala Niwas, 34 Center, Adajan Hazira Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Road, Adajan, Mumbai-400012 Surat-395 007 Pan : Afaps 0153 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Ld. AO dated 20.04.2017 under VSV which is factually incorrect. ITA Nos.48-49/SRT/2022 (A.Y 09-10) Rameshkumar L Siroya 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that levy of penalty of under section 271(1)(c) on ambiguous notice under section

TRUPTI PIYUSH SHAH,,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 whether the penalty was leviable for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It was further submitted that even while passing the penalty order, the AO has erred in levying penalty on both the limbs i.e. for concealment of particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

TRUPTI PIYUSH SHAH,,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 whether the penalty was leviable for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It was further submitted that even while passing the penalty order, the AO has erred in levying penalty on both the limbs i.e. for concealment of particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

KRISTINA NATHABHAI KRICHCHAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), 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.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

54(1) of the Act. In normal circumstances by executing an agreement to sell in respect of immovable property, a right in personam is created in favour of the transferee/vendee and when such a right is created, the vendor is restrained to sell the said property to someone else because the transferee has got a legitimate right to enforce specific

SADBHAVNA DEVLOPERS,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.479/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sadbhavana Developers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.47, 2Nd Floor, Sweet Home Central Circle-2, Surat. & Sweet House, Rajwadi Parti Plot, Amroli, Surat – 395 009. [Pan: Acafs 8340 R] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri P.S.Choudhary –Sr.Dr

54 (Guj) and the Assessing Officer has finally imposed penalty on deemed concealment of particulars of his income and furnished or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereon, thus, the Assessing officer has not specified and arrived at a conclusion whether he has imposed penalty for concealment of income or for inaccurate particulars of such income. Hence, penalty levied by the Assessing Officer

SHRI SALAHUDDIN H. BAIG,,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Now, we refer to the penalty order dated 27.08.2014 wherein the Assessing Officer has again stated that the assessee has not complied with any of the conditions in order to eligible for claim of deduction u/s 54

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

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 liberty to add, alter, amend

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

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 liberty to add, alter, amend

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

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 liberty to add, alter, amend

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S J.K. Paper Ltd. Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mill, Vs. Surat. Fort Songadh, Surat. Pan : Aaact 6305 N Appellant Respondednt

271 of the IT Act and therefore ratio of case law of Madras High Court, in the case of Sundram Finance Pvt Ltd (2018)(93 taxmann.com250) would apply in this case, wherein the SLP of the assessee has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court?. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case