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(2). Carrying out survey under section 133A is not at all any proceedings. Proceedings as used in section 271(1)(c) are statutory proceedings initiated against the assessee either by issuance of statutory notice or after filing of return of income. Survey u/s.133A or search under section 132 or issuance of notice u/s.133(6) for example, are only

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(2). Carrying out survey under section 133A is not at all any proceedings. Proceedings as used in section 271(1)(c) are statutory proceedings initiated against the assessee either by issuance of statutory notice or after filing of return of income. Survey u/s.133A or search under section 132 or issuance of notice u/s.133(6) for example, are only

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(2). Carrying out survey under section 133A is not at all any proceedings. Proceedings as used in section 271(1)(c) are statutory proceedings initiated against the assessee either by issuance of statutory notice or after filing of return of income. Survey u/s.133A or search under section 132 or issuance of notice u/s.133(6) for example, are only

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. VIP CORPORATION,, 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(2). Carrying out survey under section 133A is not at all any proceedings. Proceedings as used in section 271(1)(c) are statutory proceedings initiated against the assessee either by issuance of statutory notice or after filing of return of income. Survey u/s.133A or search under section 132 or issuance of notice u/s.133(6) for example, are only

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(2). Carrying out survey under section 133A is not at all any proceedings. Proceedings as used in section 271(1)(c) are statutory proceedings initiated against the assessee either by issuance of statutory notice or after filing of return of income. Survey u/s.133A or search under section 132 or issuance of notice u/s.133(6) for example, are only

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(2). Carrying out survey under section 133A is not at all any proceedings. Proceedings as used in section 271(1)(c) are statutory proceedings initiated against the assessee either by issuance of statutory notice or after filing of return of income. Survey u/s.133A or search under section 132 or issuance of notice u/s.133(6) for example, are only

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(2). Carrying out survey under section 133A is not at all any proceedings. Proceedings as used in section 271(1)(c) are statutory proceedings initiated against the assessee either by issuance of statutory notice or after filing of return of income. Survey u/s.133A or search under section 132 or issuance of notice u/s.133(6) for example, are only

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

u/s. 71 of the IT Act…………………." .". The income-tax is only one tax and levied on the sum total on the income classified and chargeable under various heads. Section 14 has classified different heads of income and income under each head is separately computed. Income which is computed in accordance with law is one income and it is not collection

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

u/s. 71 of the IT Act…………………." .". The income-tax is only one tax and levied on the sum total on the income classified and chargeable under various heads. Section 14 has classified different heads of income and income under each head is separately computed. Income which is computed in accordance with law is one income and it is not collection

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

u/s. 71 of the IT Act…………………." .". The income-tax is only one tax and levied on the sum total on the income classified and chargeable under various heads. Section 14 has classified different heads of income and income under each head is separately computed. Income which is computed in accordance with law is one income and it is not collection

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT.LTD.,,SILVASA vs. THE DCIT.,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.380/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial Income Tax, S. Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.353/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial S. Income Tax, Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 & (A.Y.) 2011-12, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Order & Penalty Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act & Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act), in ITA No.353/SRT/2017, for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “01. The order imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is contrary to the facts of the case and prejudicial to the Law. The appellant has neither concealed its income

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT.LTD.,,SILVASA vs. THE ACIT.,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.380/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial Income Tax, S. Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.353/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial S. Income Tax, Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 & (A.Y.) 2011-12, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Order & Penalty Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act & Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act), in ITA No.353/SRT/2017, for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “01. The order imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is contrary to the facts of the case and prejudicial to the Law. The appellant has neither concealed its income

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

penalty 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

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

penalty 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

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

BHUPENDRA MAGANLAL NAIK (HUF),NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO. 1, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am (Physical Hearing) Bhupendra Maganlal Naik (Huf), The Ito, Ward No.1, 29/B, Manglam Bunglow, Navsari. Vs Alka Society, Chhapra Road, Navsari, Gujarat – 396445. Pan : Aaghd1504E Appellant Respondednt

penalty of Rs.1,40,707/- u/s 271(1)(c) without considering the judgement of Honourable Gujarat – Tribunals/High Court in our submissions and also other points. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeals.” 2 Bhupendra Magnalal Naik (HUF) 3. Brief facts of the cases are that the assessee while filing return

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the ld. CIT(A) allowed substantial relief to the assessee on various additions and disallowancevide order No. CAS-1/145/2015-16 dated 11/05/2016, by following the orders of Tribunal in earlier year. The ld CIT(A), sustained the penaly on the following additions

BAYER VAPI PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,),VAPI vs. THE A CIT., VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.1688/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bayer Vapi Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Income Tax, Private Limited), Plot No.306/3, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Phase-Ii, Vapi – 396 195, Gujarat. [Pan: Aabcb 2100 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul K Patel, Advocate & Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca Shri Prasenjit Singh – Cit(Dr) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 18.07.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 27.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The 1. Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Valsad, Valsad(In Short “The Cit(A)”) Dated 31.03.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita 2. No.1688/Ahd/2014 Read As Under : “01. The Appellant Company Has Neither Concealed Its Income Nor Submitted Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & The Adjustments/ Additions Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Facts Of The Case & Law & Deserves To Be Deleted. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.Acit-Vapi/Ita No.1688/Ahd/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 2 Of 20

71,30,589/- @10% of tax on the aforesaid disallowance / additions by treating the same as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income considering the said amount as tax sought to be evaded. Being aggrieved, the assessee has carried the matter 7. before the ld.CIT(A). With regard to claim of depreciation on intangible assets at Rs.7