SHRI JAYANTIBHAI PARBHUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.376/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mansukhbhai Naranbhai Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), Makhani, Surat. 21, Radheshyam Society, Op. Momai Complex, Mota Varachha, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepp7596H (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Jayantibhai Parbhubhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), Plot No.10, 11, 12, Patel Surat. Kibutz, Opp. Padaria Mahllo, Adajan, Surat-395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acvpp5038L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.562/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kalubhai Manjibhai Kothia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), 41, Shree Ramnagar Society, Surat. Hirabaug, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpk1424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/11/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals, are common and identical, therefore these three appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts as well as grounds of appeal

MANOJKUMAR ISHWARBHAI PATEL,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.710/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Manojkumar Ishwarbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax 2/917 Sahil Bungalow, Vs. Office, Bsnl Building, Station Vallabhwadi, Bardoli-394601 Road, Bardoli-394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bhlpp 2872 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 28.03.2023. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are as follows:- “1. That on facts and circumstances of case as well as law on subject the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Office in assessing total income at Rs.56,48,120

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

120 of 2012 dated 07.01.2013 wherein it was held as follows:- This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, (1969) 72 ITR 194 wherein Shah, J (as His Lordship then was) held as follows: “The question again assumes that it was for the Income- Tax Officer to indicate the source

BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

condone these minor delays in filing appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 4. Although, these appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, contain multiple grounds of appeals. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. We note that most

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

condone these minor delays in filing appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 4. Although, these appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, contain multiple grounds of appeals. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. We note that most

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

condone these minor delays in filing appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 4. Although, these appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, contain multiple grounds of appeals. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. We note that most

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

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

condone the delay in filling the present appeal\nand decide the appeal on merit.\n6.\nBrief facts of the case that the assessee has not filed his original return of\nincome for the A.Y. 2011-12. As per information available on records, the assessee\nhas made cash deposits of Rs.20,30,000/-during the year. To examine the source

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

120 of 2012\ndated 07.01.2013 wherein it was held as follows:- This principle was reiterated\nby the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Devi Prasad\nVishwanath Prasad, (1969) 72 ITR 194 wherein Shah, J (as His Lordship then\nwas) held as follows: “The question again assumes that it was for the Income-\nTax Officer to indicate the source

M/S. C. J. GROUP & GAJRAS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,PANVEL, MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.02/Srt/2021 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S C.J. Group & Gajras Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Builders & Developers, Vs Bharuch Bhoomi Land Mark, Plot No. 30-30A, Sector-17, Khan Colony, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra Pan No. Aagfc 4658 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) on 24.03.2014. M/s C J Group & Gajras Builders & Developers 2. On perusal of record shows that impugned order was passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 24.08.2020, however, assessee has filed present appeal on 05.01.2021. Thus, there is delay of 65 days

HITESH DAHYABHAI PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO (INT. TAX.), SURAT, ADAJAN

In the result, the appeals filed the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. However the assessee has filed appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) in paper form as prescribed under the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 within the prescribed period of limitation. But the same was dismissed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) by holding that assessee had not filed appeal through electronic form, which

HITESH DAHYABHAI PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO (INT. TAX.), SURAT, ADAJAN

In the result, the appeals filed the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. However the assessee has filed appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) in paper form as prescribed under the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 within the prescribed period of limitation. But the same was dismissed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) by holding that assessee had not filed appeal through electronic form, which

JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

120 of 2012 dated 07.01.2013 wherein it was held as follows:- This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, (1969) 72 ITR 194 wherein Shah, J (as His Lordship then was) held as follows: “The question again assumes that it was for the Income-Tax Officer to indicate the source

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

120 of 2012 dated 07.01.2013 wherein it was held as follows:- This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, (1969) 72 ITR 194 wherein Shah, J (as His Lordship then was) held as follows: “The question again assumes that it was for the Income-Tax Officer to indicate the source

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

120 of 2012 dated 07.01.2013 wherein it was held as follows:- This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, (1969) 72 ITR 194 wherein Shah, J (as His Lordship then was) held as follows: “The question again assumes that it was for the Income-Tax Officer to indicate the source