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

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.” 21. Shri Jagasheth

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,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

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,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

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act is initiated separately on this point.” 7. During the penalty proceedings vide penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) dated 24/09/2014, the Assessing Officer noted that deduction u/s.54EC of the Act was to be allowed to the assessee on the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- invested within the specified period

BASANT SEKHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Hybrid hearing) Basant Sekhani, I.T.O., 202, Matru Ashish, Kazis, Gopipura, Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Surat, Gujarat-395001. Surat. PAN No. AVOPS 2826 F Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Ms. Chaitali Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of institution of appeals 25/08/2023 Date of hearing 01/11/2023 Date of pronouncement

BASANT SEKHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Hybrid hearing) Basant Sekhani, I.T.O., 202, Matru Ashish, Kazis, Gopipura, Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Surat, Gujarat-395001. Surat. PAN No. AVOPS 2826 F Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Ms. Chaitali Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of institution of appeals 25/08/2023 Date of hearing 01/11/2023 Date of pronouncement

SHRI HARISHKUMAR NAGINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD - 2(3)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing In Virtual Court) Mohmed Ismail Vakhawala, Vs The Ito, International C/O. Chirag Tambedia & Co., 9, Pruthvi Taxation, Bharuch. Nagar, 1St Floor, Station Road, Bharuch, 392001, Gujarat. [Pan : Abdpv 2440 D] Assessee Respondednt

69,625/- made on account of income arises due to Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP). Simultaneously, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 were initiated on the very same issue. On appeal, ld CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty imposed by the assessing officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, therefore

DHAVAL INDRAVADAN GANDHI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Ito Ward-2, At & Post Areth, Tal Mandvi, Aayakar Bhavan, Janta Nagar Surat-394160. Vs. Society, Bardoli-394601. Pan No. Ajjpg 4246 J Appellant Respondent

69 of the Act and added of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee, initiating penalty the same to the total income of the assessee, initiating penalty the same to the total income of the assessee, initiating penalty ITA No. 601/SRT/2025 4 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi proceedings under section

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

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

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

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. 274 of the Act was issued on 25.09.2018 and served\nupon the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee has\nneither furnished

SHRI MUKESHBHAI KISHORBHAI LAKHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mukeshbhai Kishorbhai Lakhani, I.T.O., 89, Aashirwad Row House, Near Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat-395006 (Gujarat) Pan No. Abppl 9388 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

penalty of Rs. 11,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the Tribunal may deem it proper. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing