SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

68 of the Act by relying upon the same books of account. Learned Counsel also argues that assessing officer has issued defective notice to levy penalty, that is, assessing officer did not specify any limb whether penalty is on ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

253 ITR 454 (Guj.) ii) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision dated 17.10.1978 in the case of CIT vs. Vinaychand Harilal (1979) 120 ITR 752 (Guj.) iii) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision dated 09.10.2000 in the case of National Textiles vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj.) iv) ITAT, Ahmedabad ’A’ Bench Decision dated 30.11.2011 decided

SHRI PARESH K. SORATHIYA,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2)(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2018 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Paresh Sorathiya Income Tax Officer 195, Ambica Nagar No.2, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs Opp. Arogya Kendra, Gate, Surat-395001 Katargam Road, Surat Pan : Axbps 9579 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

68 was based on deeming provisions and merely additions were confirmed, penalty cannot be levied. The submission of assessee was not accepted by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that it is a clear case of concealment of particulars of income and assessee has not furnished particulars of income related to the source and transaction

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

68 permitting the Assessing Officer to treat unexplained cash credit as income are enabling provisions for making certain additions, where there is failure by the assessee to give an explanation or where the explanation is not to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer However, the addition made on this count would not automatically justify imposition of penalty under section

RUCHIT DINESHBHAI DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act would not follow as a natural corollary when the assessee himself has disclosed all the details. To support such submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering

CHIMANBHAI A. KANTESARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Income Tax Officer A-54, Trikam Nagar Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Aaykar Vs Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, 395006 Surat-395001 Pan : Abepp 7380 D Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) while passing the assessment order. The show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act was served upon the assessee. The Assessing 2 Sh.Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Officer recorded that neither the assessee appeared nor filed any written explanation. The Assessing Officer held

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

1 of appeal, the ld. AR for the assessee submits that definition of transfer is defined in section 2(47) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) in his order erred in applying definition of transfer as defined in section 2(47) of the Act to the case of assessee for whom the plots of land Raj Enterprises

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

1 of appeal, the ld. AR for the assessee submits that definition of transfer is defined in section 2(47) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) in his order erred in applying definition of transfer as defined in section 2(47) of the Act to the case of assessee for whom the plots of land Raj Enterprises

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

1 of appeal, the ld. AR for the assessee submits that definition of transfer is defined in section 2(47) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) in his order erred in applying definition of transfer as defined in section 2(47) of the Act to the case of assessee for whom the plots of land Raj Enterprises

RAMILABEN KALUBHAI KAKADIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURAT

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) Ramilaben Kalubhai Kakadia, I.T.O., 62, Mira Nagar, Bhat Ni Wadi, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Varachha Road, Surat-395008. Surat. Pan No. Aippk 2934 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

1)(c). Thus, the Assessing officer was not sure about the limb of charges under which the penalty was initiated and levied. The penalty was levied without proper appreciation of facts vis a vis specifying specific charge. The ld. AR further submits that on identical facts in case of assessee’s daughter in law Saritaben Rahul Kakadia

JUNAID SULEMAN MOTARA,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, , NAVSARI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 253(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 on 06.10.2023 vide ITA 674/SRT/2023 against the order of the\n2\nITA Nos.567 & 674/SRT/2023 (A.Ys.15-16 & 16-17)\nJunaid S. Motara\nCommissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y 2016-17, which was made on 16.06.2023 and\nuploaded on the Income Tax e-filing portal under e-proceedings. Although this appeal\nshould

JUNAID SULEMAN MOTARA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT OSD, WARD THEREE NAVSARI

section 253(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 on 06.10.2023 vide ITA 674/SRT/2023 against the order of the\n2\nITA Nos.567 & 674/SRT/2023 (A.Ys.15-16 & 16-17)\nJunaid S. Motara\nCommissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y 2016-17, which was made on 16.06.2023 and\nuploaded on the Income Tax e-filing portal under e-proceedings. Although this appeal\nshould

SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA PROP. OF BRIGHT DIAMONDS,SURATY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

ITO, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA PROP. OF DEEKSHA TRADING ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), , SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR PROP. OF ADITI EXPORTS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order