SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(Appeals) in their respective orders. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. The issue for consideration before us is whether penalty proceedings can be sustained for disallowances made

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act separately.” 9. The ld Counsel pointed out that during the penalty proceedings, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessing officer has levied the penalty on both the limbs, that is, (i) concealment of income as well as (ii) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, ld Counsel contended that

AKSHAR GEMS,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) Akshar Gems, Assistant Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Shreeji Diamond Apartment, Vs. Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Nandu Doshi Ni Wadi, Vastadevdi Road, Aaykar Bhavan Nr.Majura Katargam, Surat – 395004 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarfa3697A Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

u/s 271-I of the Act is not mandatory but is discretionary and Assessing Officer has to exercise his judicial discretion before levying the penalty. The use of the word “may” in Section 271-I of the Act, clearly shows that discretion is conferred on the Assessing Officer to impose penalty or not to impose the penalty having due regard

RAHUL COAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,SURAT vs. ITO TDS-2, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1220/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Rahul Coal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Addl. Cit (Tds), 429-432 Golden Point, Ring Road, Surat, Nr. Bsnl Office, Surat-395 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1044D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

TDS in ITA Nos. 2505/Ahd/2018 and ITA No.339/Ahd/2020 dated 30.06.2023 and requested to allow the appeal. ITA No.1220/SRT/2024/AY.2013-14 Rahul Coal India Pvt. Ltd. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He stated that the address in the assessment order and the penalty order are the same

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

271(1)(c) on surviving additions and (ii) erroneous computation of penalty by the AO while giving effect to the appellate order due to failure to consider TDS credit and the tax effect of deleted additions. 20. In the quantum appeal decided by this Tribunal (in the connected quantum appeal), the addition made u/s.69A of the Act has been deleted

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

271(1)(c) on surviving additions and (ii) erroneous computation of penalty by the AO while giving effect to the appellate order due to failure to consider TDS credit and the tax effect of deleted additions. 20. In the quantum appeal decided by this Tribunal (in the connected quantum appeal), the addition made u/s.69A of the Act has been deleted

GTPL RAJWADI NETWORK PVT. LTD.,BAMROLI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by sustaining the penalty to the extent of Rs.1,56,587/- as against Rs.4,69,761/- imposed by Assessing Officer. 2. It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.1,56,587/- and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted

FORTUNE DREAM CON PVT. LTD,VAPI vs. ITO, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.321/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Vs. The Ito, Ward-2, 3Rd Floor, Fortune Dream Con Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 165/C/3, Opp. Fortune Pakak Arcade, Aayakar Bhavan, Mall, Gidc, Vapi. Shantinagar Tithal Road, Valsad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcf 4561 F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Vls/115/17-18 Dated 14.05.2019 Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 30.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld Cit(A) Had Erred On The Facts Of The Case In Upholding The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.”

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. Succinct facts are that during the assessment proceedings, assessing officer noticed that in the case of M/s Damodar Suruchi Developers, interest was provided by them of Rs.15,41,117/- and on which TDS

M/S. PANCHSHEEL INTERMEDIATES,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Panchsheel Intermediates Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 8101, Income Tax, Circle-2(3) Vs. Industrial Estate, Surat Sachin, Surat Pan : Aadfp1002C Appellant Respondednt

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 3.Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” M/s Panchseel Intermediates, Surat 2. Brief

SHRI BHARATKUMAR T. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, Ground No.1 of appeal is allowed

TDS details, confirmation and return of income filed by the said parties for verification of the said labour expenses. Therefore, to verify the genuineness of said labour expenses, AO had issued notice u/s.133(6) of the parties but were received returned. The AO had rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of commission received @ 0.30% and had estimated

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

TDS certificates as per the details filed by the assessee, which were also filed before the AO. Thus, the addition is made on difference of opinion from the point of view of the Assessee and the AO. It is trite law that penalty proceedings are distinct and separate proceedings from assessment proceedings. The finding recorded in the assessment order

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions on each of the additions/disallowances, on which the penalty was levied by the Assessing officer. On the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act, it was contended by the assessee that

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

271(1)(c) @100% of tax sought to be evaded. The Assessing Officer also added the interest income of Rs. 10,90,550/- on deposit with State Bank of India, such income was not disclosed in the computation of income. The assessing officer added such interest income in the assessment order and also levied penalty @100% of tax sought

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

271(1)(c) @100% of tax sought to be evaded. The Assessing Officer also added the interest income of Rs. 10,90,550/- on deposit with State Bank of India, such income was not disclosed in the computation of income. The assessing officer added such interest income in the assessment order and also levied penalty @100% of tax sought

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

271(1)(c) @100% of tax sought to be evaded. The Assessing Officer also added the interest income of Rs. 10,90,550/- on deposit with State Bank of India, such income was not disclosed in the computation of income. The assessing officer added such interest income in the assessment order and also levied penalty @100% of tax sought

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

DINABEN DILIPKUMAR PATEL,NA vs. ASRIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Physical hearing) Dinaben Dilipkumar Patel, I.T.O., C/o- Hitendra Desai, 48/49, Ward-2, Vs. Bandhan, Patel Nagar Society, Navsari. Chhapra Road, Navsari-396445. PAN No. AAVPP 5860 A Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Darshit J Naik, CA & Shri Jairaj M Naik, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23/03/2023

DINABEN DILIPKUMAR PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

u/s 271(1)(c)] (Physical hearing) Dinaben Dilipkumar Patel, I.T.O., C/o- Hitendra Desai, 48/49, Ward-2, Vs. Bandhan, Patel Nagar Society, Navsari. Chhapra Road, Navsari-396445. PAN No. AAVPP 5860 A Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Darshit J Naik, CA & Shri Jairaj M Naik, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23/03/2023