BASANT SEKHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

condoning the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the matter may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer and not to the file of ld. CIT(A) as the assessing officer made additions for the want of compliance also passed assessment order under section 144

SUSHILA RAJESH YADAV,SILVASSA vs. CIT APPEAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

144 of the Act on 30.10.2019 and the same was confirmed by CIT(A)\non 27.07.2022. Thereafter, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal on\n09.12.2024, which is time barred by 806 days. The appellant submitted that e-\nmail id given in the Form No.35 is ‘hkpant129@gmail.com’. However, notices\nu/s 250 of the Act were sent on ‘hkpantassociates@gmail.com

RAMESHCHANDRA BUDHIYABHAI AHIR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rameshchandra Budhiyabhai Ahir, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Pilutha Faliyu, At & Post – Ward-1, Bardoli, Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Siyalaj, Tal – Magrol, Dist – Surat, Surat – 394110 Bsnl Building, Station Road, Bardoli-394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alfpa7625Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay of 37 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merit, Ld. Counsel contended that order passed by the Assessing Officer is under section 144

MUKHTAR RAMZAN SHAIKH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

condone the delay in both appeals of the assessee. 11. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.628/SRT/2023, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.1(in ITA No.628/SRT/2023), therefore, I dismiss ground No.1 raised by the assessee, as “not pressed”. 12. Now, I take ground

MUKHTAR RAMZAN SHAIKH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

condone the delay in both appeals of the assessee. 11. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.628/SRT/2023, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.1(in ITA No.628/SRT/2023), therefore, I dismiss ground No.1 raised by the assessee, as “not pressed”. 12. Now, I take ground

BHAVIN ARUNBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Parvassa Road, Mota Waghchhipa, Ward – 1, Kila Pardi, Valsad – 396001, Vapi Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arypp2459F (Appellant) (Respondent)

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 15.12.2017. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order

BACHRAJ CHHOTELAL MEHTA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Bachraj Chhotelal Mehta, Ito Ward-2(3)(8), C-3, 3Rd Floor, Antwerp Park, 619, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Apartment, Kansara Sheri, Vs. Gate, Mahidharpura, Surat-395001. Surat-395003. Pan No. Afrpm 7809 R Appellant Respondent

144 r.ws 147 dated 30/10/2015 30/10/2015 had not been passed in my name and under my had not been passed in my name and under my PAN, however had been passed in name of a non PAN, however had been passed in name of a non PAN, however had been passed in name of a non-existent entity named

BAIJNATH GOEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1339/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Baijnath Goel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 701, Prayag Residency, Parle Point, 1(2)(1), Surat, Room # 116, बनाम B/H Sargam Shopping Centre, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Surat-395 007 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil [Pan : Afipg 6263 N] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

condonation of delay. In fact, the assessment was completed under section 144. 3. The Ld. AR of the assessee further

JANVI THREAD PRIVATE LIMTED,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(3), SURAT

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

condoning the delay of 172 days, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 2000/- per appeal due to non-compliance before the lower authorities.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 147", "Section 144

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

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

delay fell within the period condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "69A", "144", "254(1)", "249(3)", "250(1)", "119(2)(b)" ], "issues

GAHNSHYAM K KEVADIYA HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this\nappeal is allowed

sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "147", "148", "144", "44AD", "250" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned and whether

KANTILAL DAYALBHAI RAMBHAI ,SURAT vs. ITO(INT. TAX), SURAT

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

144", "Section 147", "Section 271(1)(c)", "Section 274", "Section 271F", "Section 55A", "Section 2(14)", "Section 45"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of PAN mismatch without adjudicating on merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned

SUNILKUMAR ICHHUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

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

delayed by 177 days due to communication issues with his tax consultant regarding hearing notices for the appeal before the CIT(A). The AO made a best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act, treating cash deposits and credits totaling Rs. 72,68,976/- as unexplained money under section 69A.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

GHANSHYAM K KEVADIYA HUF,SURAT vs. ITO-1(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this\nappeal is allowed

sections": [ "254(1)", "147", "148", "144", "271(1)(c)", "44AD", "250" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned

SNP MERCHANT PVT.LTD, ,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

condoning the delay in filing appeal. 4 ITA Nos. 135-137SRT/2019/AY.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 SNP Merchant Pvt. Ltd. 4. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and not making compliance right from the beginning. No proper compliance was made before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made various additions

SNP MERCHANT PVT.LTD, ,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

condoning the delay in filing appeal. 4 ITA Nos. 135-137SRT/2019/AY.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 SNP Merchant Pvt. Ltd. 4. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and not making compliance right from the beginning. No proper compliance was made before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made various additions

SNP MERCHANT PVT.LTD, ,SURAT vs. ITO(TDS)-2,, SURAT

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

condoning the delay in filing appeal. 4 ITA Nos. 135-137SRT/2019/AY.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 SNP Merchant Pvt. Ltd. 4. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and not making compliance right from the beginning. No proper compliance was made before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made various additions

JAYSHREEBEN NILAMKUMAR DESAI,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayshreeben Nilamkumar Desai, I.T.O., Saket, New Patel Nagar Society, Chhapra Ward-3, Vs. Road, Navsari. Navsari. Pan No. Ambpd 8733 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condonation of delay as argued by the ld. AR of the assessee. The ld. Sr. DR submits that the assessee has not explained the cause of delay. Cause of delay is not bonafide. The assessee has not made any compliance before the Assessing Officer. The assessment was completed under Section 144