ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed

ITO, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed

VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR PROP. OF ADITI EXPORTS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed

MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI PROP. SHRUSHTI ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, - 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed

SHRI ANURAGRAIJI V. GOSWAMI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1331/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Anuragraji V. Goswami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O. Yogesh B. Shah, Ward-5(1), Surat. 5/458, Haripura, Kaljug Street, Surat-395003 [Pan: Aajpt 4629 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

delay is condoned. Ground no. 1,2 & 3 relates to sustaining of Rs.3,05,200/- and 5. Rs.1,15,390 being income in the hands of the appellant. Though the gift of Rs.3,05,200/- gift worth of Rs.3,00,000/- is received through cheque from Anuragraji V. Goswami v. ITO, Ward-5(1),Surat/ITA. 1331/AHD/2017/A.Y.2006-07 Page

BANK OF INDIA,SURAT vs. ITO (TDS-1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

delay in filing both the appeals are condoned and both the appeals are accepted for adjudication on merits. ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat 9. Now adverting to consideration of additional ground of appeal. The assessee filed application dated 04.11.2022 and has raised the additional ground of appeal that the order passed

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

delay in filing both the appeals are condoned and both the appeals are accepted for adjudication on merits. ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat 9. Now adverting to consideration of additional ground of appeal. The assessee filed application dated 04.11.2022 and has raised the additional ground of appeal that the order passed

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

delay in filing both the appeals are condoned and both the appeals are accepted for adjudication on merits. ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat 9. Now adverting to consideration of additional ground of appeal. The assessee filed application dated 04.11.2022 and has raised the additional ground of appeal that the order passed

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

delay in filing both the appeals are condoned and both the appeals are accepted for adjudication on merits. ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat 9. Now adverting to consideration of additional ground of appeal. The assessee filed application dated 04.11.2022 and has raised the additional ground of appeal that the order passed

BHAKTIKISHOREDAS DHARMTANYADASJI SWAMI,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhaktikishoredas I.T.O., Dharmtanyadasji Swami, Ward-1, Vs. Shri Swaminarayan Seva Trust, Vapi. Swaminarayan Gurukul, Gurukul Road, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat India-396191. Pan No. Bmgps 5746 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

delay of 43 days in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed return of income for A.Y. 2010-11. The case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee made time deposit of Rs. 12.55 lacs in bank

SAFFRON GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

condonation of delay. 3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that while computing the delay, the date on which appeal has been filed, has not been excluded. We are of the view that the date on which appeal has been filed by the assessee, should not be included in computing the delay in filing

ASST. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, SURAT vs. M/S. NOBAL JEWELS PVT. LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

condonation of delay. 3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that while computing the delay, the date on which appeal has been filed, has not been excluded. We are of the view that the date on which appeal has been filed by the assessee, should not be included in computing the delay in filing

ANTIQUE EXIM PVT LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

condonation of delay. 3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that while computing the delay, the date on which appeal has been filed, has not been excluded. We are of the view that the date on which appeal has been filed by the assessee, should not be included in computing the delay in filing

NOBAL JEWELS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

condonation of delay. 3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that while computing the delay, the date on which appeal has been filed, has not been excluded. We are of the view that the date on which appeal has been filed by the assessee, should not be included in computing the delay in filing

MARUDHAR DIAMOND PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

condonation of delay. 3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that while computing the delay, the date on which appeal has been filed, has not been excluded. We are of the view that the date on which appeal has been filed by the assessee, should not be included in computing the delay in filing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. MARUDHAR DIAMOND PVT LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

condonation of delay. 3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noted that while computing the delay, the date on which appeal has been filed, has not been excluded. We are of the view that the date on which appeal has been filed by the assessee, should not be included in computing the delay in filing