HASMUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,VAPI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

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) are clearly applicable and it is deemed that the assessee had concealed his particulars of income. In view of above, the Assessing Officer held that assessee has without any reasonable cause ‘concealed his income’ to the extent of Rs.2,97,79,023/- and evaded the tax thereon within the meaning of u/s 271

SHRI JERAMBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI THESIA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1574/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Jerambhai Parsottambhai V The Deputy Commissioner Thesia, A-17, Vithal Nagar, S Of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat. Hirabaug, Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aampt 5791 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R.Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

section 271 (l)(c). It is further submitted here that if explanation of assessee remains unproved but not disproved by assessing officer, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be imposed. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on jurisdictional Gujarat High Court decision in case of National Textiles v. CIT (24? ITR 125) and CIT v. Jalaram

PAL GRAM HINDU SARVAJANIK TRUST,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.536/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pal Gram Hindu Sarvajanik Trust, V The Income Tax Officer, At 7 Post : Pal, Tal. Choryasi, Exemption Ward, Surat. S. Dist – Surat – 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatp 2544 G (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat [Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 30.05.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of 1The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 24.03.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “[1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. [2] With The Assessing Officer Failing To Specify In The Assessment Order As To Whether The Proceedings Were Initiated For Concealing Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, The Penalty Order Was Required To Be Knocked Down In View Of The Decision Of The Gujarat High Court In Case Of Sorathia Engineering Co. Ltd. (282-Itr-642). [3] The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Vary Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

u/s 11(2) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that penalty levied by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act is bad in law and needs to be deleted. 10. If the Income Tax Act is analysed, it is seen that there are three different ways in which the statutory requirements are enforced

HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

u/s 271(1)(c) on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and confirm the order. Grounds No 1 to 3 are, therefore, dismissed. In the result, the appeal is Dismissed.” 7. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A) upholding the levy of penalty made by the Assessing Officer under

JAYANTIBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Ito, New Delhi, 283, Padm Punj, Siddhanth Bharuch-392001. Nagar Soceity, Gujarat Housing Vs. Board, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aebpp 3770 P Appellant Respondent : None For Assessee Assessee By : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 06/10/2025 Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

73,731/-, by order dated 01.03.2024, holding that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income to that extent. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the levy of penalty. It was observed that in the quantum proceedings, the addition made by the Assessing Officer had been sustained by the first appellate authority, and the assessee

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Since these appeals pertain to the same assessee for different assessment years, and common issues are involved, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience Bilakhia Holdings

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Since these appeals pertain to the same assessee for different assessment years, and common issues are involved, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience Bilakhia Holdings

SHRI VIMALCHAND JAIN,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result the ground No

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. Assessee craves leave to reserve right to add to, alter or amend any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing and to produce such further evidence, documents and papers in support of claim.” 3.Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. MS. JANANI EXPORTS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.604/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year:2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Acit, Vs. M/S Janani Exports, Central Circle – 2, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Surat Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.9, 10 & 19/Srt/2024 (Ays:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2018-19) Acit, Vs. M/S Janani Exports, Central Circle – 2, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Surat Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.20 To 22/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2013-14 To 2015-16) M/S Janani Exports, Vs. Acit, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Central Circle – 2, Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri Surat (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A Nos.35 To 38/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2016-17 To 2019-20) M/S Janani Exports, Vs. Acit, 704, Vastu Slip Apt., 7Th Floor, Nr. Central Circle – 2, Parsi Colony, Pump House, Andheri Surat (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3969P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections 139 to 158 of the Act. The special procedure for assessment of search case under Chapter XIV-B u/s 158B to BI for search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and requisition u/s 132A continued till 31st May, 2003. Subsequently, assessment in case of search or requisition is carried out u/s 153A, 153B, 153C and 153D

SURAT ROUGH DIAMOND SOURCING (INDIA) LIMITED,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Surat Rough Diamond Sourcing The Income Tax Officer, (India) Limited, Ward-4(3), Surat. Vs C-401/403, Diamond World, Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat – 395006. Pan: Aaocs 9292 D Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) ofthe Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the sourcing of rough diamonds, filed

KAMUBEN RAMANLAL PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kamble& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.913/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Smt. Kamuben Ramanlal Patel Income Tax Officer, Daman, बनाम/ House No.1, Varkund, Income Tax Department, Jeevanji Vs. Mithanagar, Nani Daman, Hotel Building, Kathiria Road, Daman & Diu-396 210 Nani Daman, Daman & Diu- -396210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acppk1885N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Hemant Suthar, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shriajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 12.06.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 in levying 100% penalty of Rs.52,46,160/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by Assessing Officer on 11.01.2021. Grounds

AALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.94/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Plot No.168, Udhyog Nagar Road, Udhna, Surat -394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8469M (Assessee) (Respondent)

271 ITR 15 (Delhi)(HC).  CIT v. RatilalBacharilal& Sons [2006] 282 ITR 457 (Bom.)(HC)  PCIT vs. Oil India Ltd. [103 taxmann.com] (Gun. HC)  Renuka Philip vs ITO, [101 taxmann.com 119), (Madras HC)  CIT vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority [107 taxmann.com 18] (Bombay)  CIT vs. Vam Resorts & Hotels [111 taxmann.com 62] (Allahabad). 5. In view of the above, your honour

KANAIYALAL LABHUBHAI NAROLA,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,(2), SURAT, SURAT

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

73\ntaxmann.com 97 (Guj.). He also relied on the following decisions, viz., Smt. Kusum\nLata Thakral vs. CIT, 150 ITR 714 (P & H), Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs. CIT, 293\nITR 565, GTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT, 65 ITD 380, CIT vs. Kuber Fibers Pvt. Ltd., 77\ntaxmann.com 345, Kanungo & Co. vs. Collector of Customs, (1983) ELT 1486 (SC)\nand

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

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. M/S. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties

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

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties

SHRI MAHENDRA S. GAJJAR,NARMADA vs. DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act are initiated on addition of Rs. 59,77,552/- and for this, the show-cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is issued separately. 17.18 As regards, the remaining amounts

M/S DIAM INTERNATIONAL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.610 & 626/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Kansara Sheri, Mahindrapura, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 Surat-395 003 बनाम/ Vs. M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Kansara Sheri, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan- Mahindrapura, Surat-395 Hazira Road, Surat-395 009 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaofm 4432 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.611 & 614/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Kansara Sheri, Mahindrapura, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 Surat-395 003 Diam International बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Vs. Surat, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Kansara Sheri, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan- Mahindrapura, Surat-395 Hazira Road, Surat-395 009 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaofm 4432 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 24.07.2023 and 13.07.2023 by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2008-09 and 2009-10, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. DIAM INTERNATIONAL, MAHIDHARPURA

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.610 & 626/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Kansara Sheri, Mahindrapura, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 Surat-395 003 बनाम/ Vs. M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Kansara Sheri, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan- Mahindrapura, Surat-395 Hazira Road, Surat-395 009 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaofm 4432 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.611 & 614/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S Diam International Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Kansara Sheri, Mahindrapura, Majura Gate,Surat-395 001 Surat-395 003 Diam International बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), 202-B, Krishna Apartment, Vs. Surat, Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Kansara Sheri, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan- Mahindrapura, Surat-395 Hazira Road, Surat-395 009 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaofm 4432 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 24.07.2023 and 13.07.2023 by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2008-09 and 2009-10, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s