TULSI JEWELLERS,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 5, NAVSARI

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.946 & 947/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Tulsi Jewellers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 7-8, Saibaba Complex Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Gauaarbag, Nr Lmp School Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Chikhli Roa Bilimora, Tal: Navsari-396 445 Gandevi-396 321 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakft 8368 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

reassessment has been quashed, there is no basis at all for levy of penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act. Therefore

TULSI JEWELLERS,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, NAVSARI

In the result assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.946 & 947/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Tulsi Jewellers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 7-8, Saibaba Complex Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Income Vs. Gauaarbag, Nr Lmp School Tax Office, Charpool, Awabaug, Chikhli Roa Bilimora, Tal: Navsari-396 445 Gandevi-396 321 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakft 8368 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

reassessment has been quashed, there is no basis at all for levy of penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act. Therefore

SARAS PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,VALSAD vs. THE DY.CIT, VALSAD CIRCLE,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.689/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2007-08 Saras Plywood Products Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.744, New G.I.D.C, Valsad Circle, Valsad. Gundlav, Valsad. Pan: Aahcs 8945G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment shall be deemed to be constitute satisfaction of Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c). 6. Being

SWATI NABENDU PODDER,SILVASSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2017-18

Penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act. 5) The Learned CIT(Appeal) erred in dismissing the reassessment request of the Assessee

SHRI ASHOK RAMANLAL PATEL, HUF,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed By Him. However, On Further Appeal Before The Tribunal, The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceedings By Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Was Quashed In Absence Of Approval/Sanction Of The Appropriate

penalty proceedings were separately initiated under section 271(1)(c) for concealing long term capital gains. Subsequently, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) which was dismissed by him. However, on further appeal before the Tribunal, the initiation of the reassessment

M/S. SAMARTH INDIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4),, SURAT

In the result, all four appeals are allowed with the directions and liberty to the AO as mentioned herein above

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.103 & 104/Ahd./2017/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-03& 2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ward-1(2)(4), Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan:Aapfs 9804D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.105 & 106/Ahd./2017/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2002-03& 2003-04 M/S. Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Ward-1(2)(4), Ring Road, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidadri, Cit-Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr. D.R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018 आदेश /Order Perc.M.Garg:

penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in all these four appeals cannot be held as sustainable and we direct the AO to delete the same. 3. However, before we part with the order make it clear that in the event if in the reassessment

SHREYANSH CORPORATION,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4),, SURAT

In the result, all four appeals are allowed with the directions and liberty to the AO as mentioned herein above

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.103 & 104/Ahd./2017/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-03& 2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ward-1(2)(4), Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan:Aapfs 9804D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.105 & 106/Ahd./2017/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2002-03& 2003-04 M/S. Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Ward-1(2)(4), Ring Road, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidadri, Cit-Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr. D.R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018 आदेश /Order Perc.M.Garg:

penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in all these four appeals cannot be held as sustainable and we direct the AO to delete the same. 3. However, before we part with the order make it clear that in the event if in the reassessment

M/S. SAMARTH INDIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4),, SURAT

In the result, all four appeals are allowed with the directions and liberty to the AO as mentioned herein above

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.103 & 104/Ahd./2017/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-03& 2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ward-1(2)(4), Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan:Aapfs 9804D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.105 & 106/Ahd./2017/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2002-03& 2003-04 M/S. Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Ward-1(2)(4), Ring Road, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidadri, Cit-Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr. D.R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018 आदेश /Order Perc.M.Garg:

penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in all these four appeals cannot be held as sustainable and we direct the AO to delete the same. 3. However, before we part with the order make it clear that in the event if in the reassessment

SHREYANSH CORPORATION,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4),, SURAT

In the result, all four appeals are allowed with the directions and liberty to the AO as mentioned herein above

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.103 & 104/Ahd./2017/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2002-03& 2003-04 M/S. Samarth India, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4408, Kohinoor Market, Ward-1(2)(4), Ring Road, Surat. Surat – 395 002. [Pan:Aapfs 9804D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.105 & 106/Ahd./2017/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2002-03& 2003-04 M/S. Shreyansh Corporation, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4409, Kohinoor Textile Market, Ward-1(2)(4), Ring Road, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Aapfs 9806B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, C.A & Mrs. Snehapadhiar, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shrisrinivast.Bidadri, Cit-Dr & Smt. Illaparmar, Sr. D.R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16-02-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-03-2018 आदेश /Order Perc.M.Garg:

penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in all these four appeals cannot be held as sustainable and we direct the AO to delete the same. 3. However, before we part with the order make it clear that in the event if in the reassessment

RITESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI CHOKSI,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment framed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), and the other appeal is against the order passed in penalty

RITESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI CHOKSI,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

reassessment framed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), and the other appeal is against the order passed in penalty

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

penalty on the ground that the claim of deduction under section 80-IA was not substantiated by evidences and the same leads to the conclusion that no accurate particulars were filed by the appellant without appreciating the fact that appellant had furnished / submitted full details during the course of the assessment, reassessment

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

penalty on the ground that the claim of deduction under section 80-IA was not substantiated by evidences and the same leads to the conclusion that no accurate particulars were filed by the appellant without appreciating the fact that appellant had furnished / submitted full details during the course of the assessment, reassessment

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

penalty on the ground that the claim of deduction under section 80-IA was not substantiated by evidences and the same leads to the conclusion that no accurate particulars were filed by the appellant without appreciating the fact that appellant had furnished / submitted full details during the course of the assessment, reassessment

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act were completed on 12.12.2019, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹5,25,000/- representing unexplained cash deposits. The Assessing Officer simultaneously initiated penalty

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that “assessment or reassessment

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that “assessment or reassessment

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 99.98 lacs. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the disallowance of deduction was upheld. The Assessing Officer after receipt of order of Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty