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

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

192 Taxman 264\n(P&H) 242 CTRE 61 (P&H) [29.06.2010) and CIT vs. Subodh Gupta 229\nTaxman 367 (Delhi)\n3. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for\nthe Revenue submits that in the application for condonation of delay, assessee\nhas not disclosed reasonable and plausible cause for condoning the delay

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

condone the delay and admit all the cross objections for hearing. 7. Now we shall take these above concise and summarised grounds of appeals of Revenue one by one. Summarised and concise ground No.(i) is reproduced below for ready reference: ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

condone the delay and admit all the cross objections for hearing. 7. Now we shall take these above concise and summarised grounds of appeals of Revenue one by one. Summarised and concise ground No.(i) is reproduced below for ready reference: ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

condone the delay and admit all the cross objections for hearing. 7. Now we shall take these above concise and summarised grounds of appeals of Revenue one by one. Summarised and concise ground No.(i) is reproduced below for ready reference: ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

condone the delay and admit all the cross objections for hearing. 7. Now we shall take these above concise and summarised grounds of appeals of Revenue one by one. Summarised and concise ground No.(i) is reproduced below for ready reference: ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

condone the delay and admit all the cross objections for hearing. 7. Now we shall take these above concise and summarised grounds of appeals of Revenue one by one. Summarised and concise ground No.(i) is reproduced below for ready reference: ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

condone the delay and admit all the cross objections for hearing. 7. Now we shall take these above concise and summarised grounds of appeals of Revenue one by one. Summarised and concise ground No.(i) is reproduced below for ready reference: ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers

DINESH INDIA COMPANY,SURAT vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 1(2), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Dinesh India Company, A.C.I.T., 5019, World Trade Centre, Ring Circle-1(2), Vs. Road, Surat-395001. Surat. Pan No. Aajfd 9144 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and trading of Tobacco Gutka and other 3 Dinesh India Company Vs ACIT Tobacco products. The assessee filed its return of income on 29/08/2017declaring income

SANJAYBHAI DAMJIBHAI GOLAKIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.951/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Vs. The Assessment Unit, D-74, Vithalnagar Society, Hirabaug, Income-Tax Department, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 Jurisdictional Ao: The Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alopg2048R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the appellant filed appeal u/s 253(1) of the Act on 09.09.2024, vide ITA No.951/SRT/2024, against the order dated 15.02.2024, which was uploaded on the Income-tax e-filing

SHRI MAJID AJIT SHAIKH,SILVASSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

delay of 42 days in filing of appeal is condoned. Now adverting the merit of the case. 5. I have heard the rival submissions of the parties on the main grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The Ld. AR 4 Sh. Majid Ajit Shaikh for the assessee submits that assessee engaged in scrap business in his proprietary concern