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

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

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

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

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)

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

SHRI PIYUSHKUMAR AMBALAL SHROFF,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, BHARUAH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1692/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Piyushkumr A. Shroff (Huf), V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Ketan H Shah, Advocate, . Income-Tax, 93 Sapphire Complex, C G Road, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 Pan: Aachp 9491 E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

58,508. However, the AO has considered the figures as per TDS certificate as commission only, whereas TDS certificate includes interest as well as commission. Therefore, there is no mismatch with figures as per TDS certificates and as shown by the assessee. All the TDS certificates as per Page No. 47 to 49 of Paper Book and ledger account

N CORE CABLES,,DAMAN vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.323 To 327/Srt/2018 Ays: (2005-06 To 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri A. Gopalkrishnan, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 10/10/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022

58 TAXMAN 133 (BOM) wherein on a similar situation the Hon’ble High Court has held that assessee in that case qualify for the relief u/s 80-I of the Act. In this regard it is submitted by ld Counsel that section 80-I is pari- materia to section 80-IB of the Act and therefore is squarely applicable

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs. THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.323 To 327/Srt/2018 Ays: (2005-06 To 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri A. Gopalkrishnan, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 10/10/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022

58 TAXMAN 133 (BOM) wherein on a similar situation the Hon’ble High Court has held that assessee in that case qualify for the relief u/s 80-I of the Act. In this regard it is submitted by ld Counsel that section 80-I is pari- materia to section 80-IB of the Act and therefore is squarely applicable

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs. THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.323 To 327/Srt/2018 Ays: (2005-06 To 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri A. Gopalkrishnan, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 10/10/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022

58 TAXMAN 133 (BOM) wherein on a similar situation the Hon’ble High Court has held that assessee in that case qualify for the relief u/s 80-I of the Act. In this regard it is submitted by ld Counsel that section 80-I is pari- materia to section 80-IB of the Act and therefore is squarely applicable

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs. THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.323 To 327/Srt/2018 Ays: (2005-06 To 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri A. Gopalkrishnan, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 10/10/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022

58 TAXMAN 133 (BOM) wherein on a similar situation the Hon’ble High Court has held that assessee in that case qualify for the relief u/s 80-I of the Act. In this regard it is submitted by ld Counsel that section 80-I is pari- materia to section 80-IB of the Act and therefore is squarely applicable

VIJAYBHAN SINGH RAJPUT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vijaybhan Singh Rajput, I.T.O., Plot No. 131/3, Near Shrisati Tex Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Prints, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abxpr 3970 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relevant part of decision is extracted below: 5 Vijaybhan Singh Rajput Vs ITO “5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. On the perusal of the of details it is observed that on the basis of the reference made to the valuation officer for valuation

NA vs. ARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN,NAVSARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.336/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navsari Malesar Behdin Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward, Room Anjuman, Agary Street, Vs No.105, 1St Floor, Anavil Malesar, Business Centre, Aayakar Navsari-396445 Bhavan, Adajan Hazira Road, Pan No. Aaatn 6124 C Adajan, Surat-395007 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

58,668/- and disallowance of expenses of Rs.7,61,790/-, respectively. 7. We find that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee vide impugned order dated 28.04.2023 by holding that impugned penalty order was issued and served by Assessing Officer through ITBA portal on electronic mode as per due procedure on the designated e-mail/e-filing portal

RAMILABEN KALUBHAI KAKADIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Ramilaben Kalubhai Kakadia, I.T.O., 62, Mira Nagar, Bhat Ni Wadi, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Varachha Road, Surat-395008. Surat. Pan No. Aippk 2934 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal.” Ramilaben Kalubhai Kakadia Vs ITO 2. Facts in brief as extracted from the order of lower authorities are that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed and the same was selected for scrutiny

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

SARAS PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,VALSAD vs. THE DY.CIT, VALSAD CIRCLE,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.689/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2007-08 Saras Plywood Products Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.744, New G.I.D.C, Valsad Circle, Valsad. Gundlav, Valsad. Pan: Aahcs 8945G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

58 taxmann.com 334 (Gujarat) / [2014] 232 Taxman 352/ [2015] 272 CTR 353 (Gujarat) . Further, the Finance Act 2008 has inserted a sub- section (1B) to section 271 that retrospective effect from 1st April, 1989, according to which an amount is added or disallowed in computing total income or loss of assessee in any order of an assessment or reassessment shall

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

M/S. SHREE LAXMI DEVELOPERS,SILVASSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA , SILVASSA

u/s 144 of the IT Act The than CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide his\norder no. CIT(A)A/LS/282/18-17/59 dated_30.03.2017. The matter is being re-\nadjudicated being available in the list of set aside cases. The ITAT-set aside the case\nof the appellant vide order elated 12.07.2019. Despite many requests, the assessee did\nnot provide confirmation letters

SHREE DHANJI J. RAKHOLIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty in the assessment order on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levying the penalty ultimately on both the grounds i.e. for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it shows lack of application

JAGDISHBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI BODRA ,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.367 & 368/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16 & 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Bodra Circle-1(1)(1), Surat, Room No.108, Vs. 37, Diamond Nagar, Mini Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat Hira Bazar, Varachha Road, - 395 001 Surat-395 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abypb 6267 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

58,190/- which was found invalid. An information was appearing under the 'CRIU/VRU High Risk Cases', the ITA Nos.367-368/SRT/2025/AYs 15-16 & 17-18 Jagdishbhai K Bodra assessee had entered into several transactions during the period. It was also reported therein that a case was registered against Shri Jagdish Bodra, in respect of a bank fraud amounting to Rs.128 crores. According

JAGDISHBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI BODRA,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.367 & 368/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16 & 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Bodra Circle-1(1)(1), Surat, Room No.108, Vs. 37, Diamond Nagar, Mini Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat Hira Bazar, Varachha Road, - 395 001 Surat-395 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abypb 6267 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

58,190/- which was found invalid. An information was appearing under the 'CRIU/VRU High Risk Cases', the ITA Nos.367-368/SRT/2025/AYs 15-16 & 17-18 Jagdishbhai K Bodra assessee had entered into several transactions during the period. It was also reported therein that a case was registered against Shri Jagdish Bodra, in respect of a bank fraud amounting to Rs.128 crores. According