THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. ANUPAM INFRASTRUCTURE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

90,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, finding of Ld.CIT(A) that the survey team/department has not built a case where the explanation of the assessee can be proved to be false or not bonafide, is not perverse as the Assessing

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. PNG DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

90,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, finding of Ld.CIT(A) that the survey team/department has not built a case where the explanation of the assessee can be proved to be false or not bonafide, is not perverse as the Assessing

THE ITO, WARD-1,, BARDOLI vs. M/S. AISHWARYA CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

90,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, finding of Ld.CIT(A) that the survey team/department has not built a case where the explanation of the assessee can be proved to be false or not bonafide, is not perverse as the Assessing

KHODIYAR ORGANISERS, SURAT,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Khodiyar Organisers, Vs. Acit, Central Plaza, Near Om Terrace, Circle – 2(3), New City Light Road, Surat – Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfk1498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘in short, the Act’) dated 27.12.2023 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) - 11, Ahmedabad [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well

SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEWA MANDAL TRUST,UNA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.204/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Sewa Vs. The Ito, Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘Nfac), Delhi, In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036051308(1) Dated 30.09.2021, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

u/s 11(6) of the Act, it had claimed depreciation in its return of income filed. The assessee also submitted that the depreciation was shown in the Profit and Loss account of the trust following the normal account practices. As per the assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings it is noticed that the assessee trust had claimed depreciation

RAMESHKUMAR LAXMANLAL SIROYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.48 & 49/Srt/2022 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Rameshkumar Laxmanlal Income Tax Officer, Ward- Siroya, 7/C Supari Baugh 3(2)(6), Anavil Business Vs Mension, Nirmala Niwas, 34 Center, Adajan Hazira Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Road, Adajan, Mumbai-400012 Surat-395 007 Pan : Afaps 0153 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Ld. AO dated 20.04.2017 under VSV which is factually incorrect. ITA Nos.48-49/SRT/2022 (A.Y 09-10) Rameshkumar L Siroya 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that levy of penalty of under section 271(1)(c) on ambiguous notice under section

RAMESHKUMAR LAXMANLAL SIROYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.48 & 49/Srt/2022 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Rameshkumar Laxmanlal Income Tax Officer, Ward- Siroya, 7/C Supari Baugh 3(2)(6), Anavil Business Vs Mension, Nirmala Niwas, 34 Center, Adajan Hazira Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Road, Adajan, Mumbai-400012 Surat-395 007 Pan : Afaps 0153 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Ld. AO dated 20.04.2017 under VSV which is factually incorrect. ITA Nos.48-49/SRT/2022 (A.Y 09-10) Rameshkumar L Siroya 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that levy of penalty of under section 271(1)(c) on ambiguous notice under section

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

90 read with clause 15 of the DTAA between India and Kazakhstan, in the most humble and respectful submission of the assessee, finding for initiation of penalty proceedings is factually incorrect, then, no proceedings under section 271(1)(C) could survive. 4.1.3) The assessee further submits that, the learned assessing officer has not specified in the operative portion

KANERIYA SAND AND AGGREGATES PVT.LTD,SURAT vs. DY.CIT, VALSAD

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) M/S Kaneriya Sand & The Dy. Commissioner Of Aggregates Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Vs U-6, Jk Towers, Ring Road, Valsad Circle, Valsad. Surat. Pan : Aadck8622N Applicant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], vide order dated 21.09.2015 for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts to confirm penalty of Rs.2,75,260/-u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The learned

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

MADANGOPAL RAMKUMAR SIKAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT., SURAT

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: 2013-2014 Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat, Ito, Ward 1(2)(1), 11-1572, Radhakrishna Textile Aayakar Bhavan, Majuragate, Market, Ring Road, Vs. Surat-395007. Surat-395002. Pan No. Awgps 7288 G Appellant Respondent

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for Rs 9,55,042/-, also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. ITA No. 918/SRT/2025 2 Madangopal Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are Briefly stated

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that there is no neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craved liberty to add, alter, amend

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that there is no neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craved liberty to add, alter, amend

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that there is no neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The appellant craved liberty to add, alter, amend

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 30.01.2015. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.22,90

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

90,00,752 TNMM Anaya Gems Inc. Purchase of Polished Diamonds 75,91,05,311 TNMM Total 261,81,06,063 The assessee has applied TNMM to benchmark the above transactions. During the course of the TP proceedings, the assessee justified the TNMM by comparing its profits margins with the margins earned by third parties engaged in similar activities. However

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

90,00,752 TNMM Anaya Gems Inc. Purchase of Polished Diamonds 75,91,05,311 TNMM Total 261,81,06,063 The assessee has applied TNMM to benchmark the above transactions. During the course of the TP proceedings, the assessee justified the TNMM by comparing its profits margins with the margins earned by third parties engaged in similar activities. However

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

90,00,752 TNMM Anaya Gems Inc. Purchase of Polished Diamonds 75,91,05,311 TNMM Total 261,81,06,063 The assessee has applied TNMM to benchmark the above transactions. During the course of the TP proceedings, the assessee justified the TNMM by comparing its profits margins with the margins earned by third parties engaged in similar activities. However