MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 271(1), which raises a presumption that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be deemed or represents the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Hence, he levied minimum penalty of Rs.2,81,669/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the appeal before

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 271(1), which raises a presumption that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be deemed or represents the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Hence, he levied minimum penalty of Rs.2,81,669/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the appeal before

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण . वष" /A Y: 1 1992/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs Imperial Developers, Of Income Tax, . ‘Blossom’ Near Vesu Canal A.Y. 2013-14 Central Opp.Dps School, Circle-3, Surat – 395 Vesu, Surat. 001. [Pan: Aadfi 5694 R] िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah - Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Srinivas T.Bidari – Sr.Dr

VI-A and hence, treating the said income under any head would not alter the total tax liability. In the said scenario when there would even no change in the tax liability, there would even be no question of filing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as there would

VIMAL CHAND GOKHAROO,SURAT vs. ITO 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 3. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

VIMAL CHAND GOKHAROO,SURAT vs. ITO 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 3. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

VIMAL CHAND GOKHAROO,SURAT vs. ITO 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 3. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

9. On appeal, ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the assessing officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 10. Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee pleaded before the Bench that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are bad in law as there was no new information before the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WASRD-3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

9. On appeal, ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the assessing officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 10. Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee pleaded before the Bench that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are bad in law as there was no new information before the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment

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

VI; Baroda (in short “the CIT (A)”) dated 14.03.2014 pertaining to Assessment Year 2003- 04. 2. The sole grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 3,04,750 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. CIT (A). 3. Succinct facts are that the assessment was framed under section

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since facts are same, with consent of the parties, both appeals were heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The quantum appeal in ITA No.612/SRT/2025 is treated as “lead” case. 1 ITA Nos.612 & 613/SRT/2025/AY 2007-08 Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd. 2. The grounds of appeal

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since facts are same, with consent of the parties, both appeals were heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The quantum appeal in ITA No.612/SRT/2025 is treated as “lead” case. 1 ITA Nos.612 & 613/SRT/2025/AY 2007-08 Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd. 2. The grounds of appeal

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

9 ITA No.51, 52 & 53/SRT/2020 (AY 2009-10 to 2011-12) Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani loss. The assessing officer initiated penalty at the time of passing assessment order. On further appeal before CIT(A) the addition in quantum assessment was upheld. The assessing officer after serving notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) levied penalty

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

9 ITA No.51, 52 & 53/SRT/2020 (AY 2009-10 to 2011-12) Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani loss. The assessing officer initiated penalty at the time of passing assessment order. On further appeal before CIT(A) the addition in quantum assessment was upheld. The assessing officer after serving notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) levied penalty

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

9 ITA No.51, 52 & 53/SRT/2020 (AY 2009-10 to 2011-12) Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani loss. The assessing officer initiated penalty at the time of passing assessment order. On further appeal before CIT(A) the addition in quantum assessment was upheld. The assessing officer after serving notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) levied penalty

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

SMT. URVASHI SANJAYKUMAR GUPTA,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainismt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta, I.T.O., Ratna Vihar Apartment, New City Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Light, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Aanpg 4855 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore, prayed that addition made by assessing officer & confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted. Smt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta Vs ITO 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal