SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. He further submitted that during the appellate proceedings the addition was made on enhancement u/s. 251(1) of the Act for the benefit of telescoping of income/outgoings. He further stated that the undisclosed transactions have been admitted to be undisclosed and he was ready to pay tax on it. It was further submitted

MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala dated 20.06.2023 for assessment years (AYs) 2009-10 and 2010-11, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed u/s 144 r.w.s

MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala dated 20.06.2023 for assessment years (AYs) 2009-10 and 2010-11, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed u/s 144 r.w.s

MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala dated 20.06.2023 for assessment years (AYs) 2009-10 and 2010-11, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed u/s 144 r.w.s

MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala dated 20.06.2023 for assessment years (AYs) 2009-10 and 2010-11, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed u/s 144 r.w.s

MANISH BANSHILAL JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 250 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] ITA No.571-575/Srt/2023/AYs.09-10 & 10-11 Manish B Jariwala dated 20.06.2023 for assessment years (AYs) 2009-10 and 2010-11, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed u/s 144 r.w.s

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

56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 has dealt with this very issue. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there

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

56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 has dealt with this very issue. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there

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

56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 has dealt with this very issue. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there

ALPESH UMESHCHANDRA,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-1(2) (1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

u/s 263 of the Act and the impugned order passed u/s- 263 of the Act. deserves to be quashed. 3. That the order passed by learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax- 1, Surat, u/s-263 of IT Act setting aside the assessment framed u/s-147 r.w.s144 AlpeshUmeshchandra vs. ITO Asst. Year –2016-17 - 2– r.w.s.144B of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 54F. From the submission filed by the assessee, it was very clear that the claim of deduction u/s 54F. From the submission filed by the assessee, it was very clear that the claim of deduction u/s 54F was not available to the assessee. The assessee was given adequate opportunity during the assessment proceedings as well as penalty proceedings

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIR 1(3), SURAT vs. M/S. D.KHUSHALBHAI JEWELLERS,, SURAT

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,71,03,941/- holding that addition due to difference of valuation cannot be held as concealment of income without appreciating that the valuation was correctly made by the A.O. adopting average purchase price of the year, since, no quantitative records were maintained by the assessee to explain the item wise correct purchase price

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SURAT vs. M/S. D.KHUSHALBHAI JEWELLERS,, SURAT

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,71,03,941/- holding that addition due to difference of valuation cannot be held as concealment of income without appreciating that the valuation was correctly made by the A.O. adopting average purchase price of the year, since, no quantitative records were maintained by the assessee to explain the item wise correct purchase price

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

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(1)(c) on 18.01.2019 wherein penalty of Rs.23,27,000/- was levied

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR R. LOHIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3),, SURAT

In the result, ground no.1 of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2453/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajeshkumar R.Lohia, V The Income Tax Officer, C/O.Abhay Agencies, S Ward-9(3), Surat. 203, Adatiya Awas, Bombay . Market, Umarwad, Surat – 395010. [Pan: Aaqpl 7299 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R.Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

56,000 – Assessee admitted that he had purchased the car for Rs.31,000 only- Therefore, admittedly, there was concealment to the tune of Rs.31,000- As regards the amount which was in excess of Rs.31,000, Tribunal held that it was a mere estimate made by the ITO while fixing the cost of the Shri Rajeshkumar R. Lohia

GTPL RAJWADI NETWORK PVT. LTD.,BAMROLI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 28.06.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in penalty confirming the action of Assessing

SHRI PARESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI PRAJAPATI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX WARD- 1,BARDOLI,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3016/Ahd/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Pareshbhai Rameshbhai Income Tax Officer Warde-1, Bardoli,Room No.601, Aaykar Prajapati, 401-403, Bonista Vs. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat Rajhans, B/H Ram Chowk Temple, Nr. Panchvati Apartment, Ghod-Dod Road, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anfpp 7713 B (Appellant ) (Respondent)

section 271(1) (c ) of the Act at Rs.22,90,696/-. 4. On appeal, ld CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, therefore, assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Before us, ld Counsel for the assessee submitted additional evidences in respect of two bank accounts. The same is explained in the written submissions filed before

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’).

section 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’).

section 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