NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 119 of the Act, to condone the delay and allow the assessee to avail the said exemption under section

NAVBHARAT CHERITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARUCH

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi Jhagadia, Bharuch, Ward-1, Vs. Gujarat, Pin-393115 Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 119 of the Act, to condone the delay and allow the assessee to avail the said exemption under section

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

119 taxmann.com 383 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee sought for condonation of delay of four and half years in filing appeal against order of Tribunal on ground of ailment of manager but High Court declined to condone delay on ground that there was nothing on record to show that manager was suffering from ailments which

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

119 taxmann.com 383 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee sought for condonation of delay of four and half years in filing appeal against order of Tribunal on ground of ailment of manager but High Court declined to condone delay on ground that there was nothing on record to show that manager was suffering from ailments which

MOGAR PARTAPORE VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

119 taxmann.com 383 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee sought for condonation of delay of four and half years in filing appeal against order of Tribunal on ground of ailment of manager but High Court declined to condone delay on ground that there was nothing on record to show that manager was suffering from ailments which

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

119 taxmann.com 383 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee sought for condonation of delay of four and half years in filing appeal against order of Tribunal on ground of ailment of manager but High Court declined to condone delay on ground that there was nothing on record to show that manager was suffering from ailments which

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

119 taxmann.com 383 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee sought for condonation of delay of four and half years in filing appeal against order of Tribunal on ground of ailment of manager but High Court declined to condone delay on ground that there was nothing on record to show that manager was suffering from ailments which

DIPIKA AQUA FARM,OLPAD vs. ADDL JCIT (A)-11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 5.” 5.4 Following the discussion of above, and considering the opinion expressed by Hon’ble Courts I rule that there is no sufficient cause and evidence given by the appellant to file the appeal delayed by 3018 days. The submission for condonation of delay is therefore rejected. 5.5 Since condonation of delay is not granted, there is no need

MAHAVIR EDUCATION TRUST,SURAT vs. ADDITIONAL CIT CPC/ JURISDICTIONAL A.O. EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, BENGALURU/SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mahavir Educational Trust, Addl.C.I.T., 6/1020, Opp. Jay Jalaram Khaman, C.P.C. Bangalore, Vs. Balaji Road, Nani Chhipwad, Gopipura, Surat-395001. (Gujarat) Jurisdictional A.O. Pan No. Aaatn 4014 C Exemption Ward, Surat. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 119(2)(b) dated 24/02/2022 for condoning the delay in filing Form 10B alongwith copy of Form 10B dated

RUNI IMPEX,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

119 taxmann.com 383 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee sought for condonation of delay of four and half years in filing appeal against order of Tribunal on ground of ailment of manager but High Court declined to condone delay on ground that there was nothing on record to show that manager was suffering from ailments which

RUNI IMPEX,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

119 taxmann.com 383 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee sought for condonation of delay of four and half years in filing appeal against order of Tribunal on ground of ailment of manager but High Court declined to condone delay on ground that there was nothing on record to show that manager was suffering from ailments which

VIJAYBHAI BOOKBINDER,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD- 3(2)(10), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of the\nappeal is allowed and ground No

119(2)(b) of the Act\nempowered the Income Tax Authorities to condone the delay if there is any\nhardship to the party. The observation of Id CIT(A) is not correct. The Id\nCIT(A) is empowered to consider the plea of condonation of delay in filing\nappeal under section

ORCHID CORP,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1119/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Orchid Corp., Vs. Ito, F-11, Orchid Ventura, Nr. New Lp Ward - 1(1)(1), Savani School, Palanpore Canal Surat Road, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaffo2395F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/10/2025

delay in filing the return is condoned by the competent income-tax authority in terms of provisions of section 119

JAYSHRI GOPALLAL MAHARAJSHRINI SURAT SRUSTI TRUST,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condone delay in filing Form 10B. 8. In the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. Income Tax Officer. (Exemption) [2021] 125 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat)/[2021] 278 Taxman 148 (Gujarat)[09-12-2020], the High Court held that where assessee, a public charitable trust registered under section 12A, had substantially satisfied condition for availing benefit of exemption as a trust

SHREE SUIGAM KHODADHOR PANJARA POLE,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condones the delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act.Keeping in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the AO has rightly denied exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act and rightly made addition of Rs.60,10,845/- to the income of the appellant.” Shree Suigam Khodadhor Panjara Pole vs. ITO(E) Asst. Year

NARPATSINH PRABHATSINH SOLANKI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the is allowed for statistical purposes

119 days, and the necessary\narrangements could not be made for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Surat,\nwithin the prescribed time.\nIn view of the above fact, it is clear that is the delay in submission of the appeal is\ndue to good and sufficient reasons, therefore, pray that the delay in filing the appeal\nshould

DHARMESH DAMJIBHAI PATOLIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Dharmesh Damjibhai Patoliya Vs. Ito, 101 Gandamaya Apartment Ward – 2(2)(1), Matrukrupa Society, Kamrej Surat Charrasta Opp. Azim Hospital, Tal: Kamrej, Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahzpp1276F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2025

119 days. The delay was not deliberate and intentional. The ld. AR of the assessee requested that the delay in filling appeal may be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submitted that Bench may decide the issue as thinks fit. ITA No.487/SRT/2024/AY.2014-15 Dharmesh D Patoliya

HARIKRISHNA JEWELS,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.354/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Court Hearing) Harikrishna Jewels, Principal Commissioner Of 201, Sunstar Building, Opp. बनाम/ Income Tax-1,, Surat, Room New Patidar Bhavan, No.123, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Vs. Mahidharpura, Surat-395 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil 003 Hospital, Surat -395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagfh 3864 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2025

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and we proceed to decide the case on merit. 4.1 Facts in brief are that assessee filed return of income on 19.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.5,51,33,350/- u/s 10AA of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and order