BILAKHIA HOLDING P LTD,VAPI vs. THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A’S No.181 & 182/Srt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Bilakhia Holding P Ltd., Vs The Assistant Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, . Commissioner Of Income Chala, Surat – 394 520. Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Gopalakrishnan Aiyer – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Usha Shrote – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 19.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Memeber: 1. Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here In After Referred To As The ‘Act’).

section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Since these appeals pertain to the same assessee for different assessment years, and common issues are involved, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience Bilakhia Holdings

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.14,00,573/- in respect of the addition made on the ground of earning of alleged long term capital gain. 2) It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned penalty levied by the Ld AO be deleted. 3) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete, change

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. M/S. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties, all appeals were clubbed

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties, all appeals were clubbed

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In all the appeals for the quantum assessment, the Revenue has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all the years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties, all appeals were clubbed

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 29/09/2012 declaring

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 29/09/2012 declaring

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of white sugar and its by-products such as molasses, press-mud, bagasse and etcetera. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 29/09/2012 declaring

M/S. MAYUR CONSTRUCTION,,VALSAD vs. THE ACIT., VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 1042/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mayur Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad. 110, Amar Chamber,Valsad. S [Pan: Aadfm 9859 L] . अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

271(1)(c). In reply to the show-cause notice, the assessee submitted that assessee has not made any incorrect claim and no inaccurate particulars were furnished. Mere making a claim which is not sustainable in law itself will not account to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. The contention of the assessee was not accepted

KRISTINA NATHABHAI KRICHCHAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), 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.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Each 349/SRT/2022/AY.2016-17 Kristina N. Krichchan release in this case was a transfer of the releasor's share for consideration to the release and the transferee, the assessee, "purchased" the share of property therefore, assessee is entitled to the relief under section 54(1

BAKIR PACHORIWALA,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, , VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Bakir Pachorwala, I.T.O., Raj Sheet Metal Engg. Works, C- Ward-1, Vs. 1/16-B, Gidc Estate, Pardi, Valsad. Valsad. Pan No. Adxpp 9237 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

271(1)(c) is unjustified. 5. The order passed by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is illegal, invalid and bad in law and required to be quashed.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had sold agricultural land for a consideration of Rs.1.153 crore to Nirmal

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income.” 11. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the AO made addition of Rs.7.96 crore to the total income of assessee. 12. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A).Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income.” 11. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the AO made addition of Rs.7.96 crore to the total income of assessee. 12. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A).Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income.” 11. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the AO made addition of Rs.7.96 crore to the total income of assessee. 12. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A).Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission

SHREE SAYAN VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4),, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1735 & 1740/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Mandli Ltd., Surat. At & Post Sayan, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4058F (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Khand Mandli Ltd., Surat. N.H. No.8, Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist: Surat, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4817N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, to the tune of Rs.15,37,079/-, on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of income. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order

SHRI KAMREJ VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4),, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1735 & 1740/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Mandli Ltd., Surat. At & Post Sayan, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4058F (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Khand Mandli Ltd., Surat. N.H. No.8, Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist: Surat, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4817N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, to the tune of Rs.15,37,079/-, on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of income. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

271(1)(c ) of the Act.” 4. First, we shall adjudicate the Summarized and concise grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA No.195/SRT/2022, where books of accounts of assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer u/s 145(3) of the Act. The summarized and concise ground No.1 is reproduced below for ready reference: (i) Ground

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

271(1)(c ) of the Act.” 4. First, we shall adjudicate the Summarized and concise grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA No.195/SRT/2022, where books of accounts of assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer u/s 145(3) of the Act. The summarized and concise ground No.1 is reproduced below for ready reference: (i) Ground

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

271(1)(c ) of the Act.” 4. First, we shall adjudicate the Summarized and concise grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in lead case in ITA No.195/SRT/2022, where books of accounts of assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer u/s 145(3) of the Act. The summarized and concise ground No.1 is reproduced below for ready reference: (i) Ground