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

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

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

delay in filling the appeal is condoned and we proceed to decide the case on merit. ITA No.533/SRT/2025 (AY 2009-10): 8. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, declaring total income of Rs.3,67,560/- on 19.09.2009. A search and seizure action

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

delay in filling the appeal is condoned and we proceed to decide the case on merit. ITA No.533/SRT/2025 (AY 2009-10): 8. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, declaring total income of Rs.3,67,560/- on 19.09.2009. A search and seizure action

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

delay in filling the appeal is condoned and we proceed to decide the case on merit. ITA No.533/SRT/2025 (AY 2009-10): 8. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, declaring total income of Rs.3,67,560/- on 19.09.2009. A search and seizure action

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

delay in filling the appeal is condoned and we proceed to decide the case on merit. ITA No.533/SRT/2025 (AY 2009-10): 8. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, declaring total income of Rs.3,67,560/- on 19.09.2009. A search and seizure action

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

221\nand Rs.8,099, Total-Rs.39,320/-)\n31.03.2003 to 15.07.2010, Transaction\nStatement at Page 8-10 of Paper Book\nIndex\nSales Contract Note at Page No. 1-2 of\nPaper Book Index\nSold through SHCIL Services Limited on\nrecognised Stock Exchange- SEBI\nregistration No. IBN011253839.\nBank Statement showing Sale proceeds\nreceived on 18.07.2010 and 21.07.2010-\nvide cheque

PARUL GAUSEVA JIVDAYA TRUST ,SURAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

221 days. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed application for condonation of delay and submitted that the Trustees of the applicant trust was not well-versed with income tax proceedings and accordingly, he engaged a tax consultant for filing application for registration under Section

PARMARTH TRUST,SURAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

221 days. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed application for condonation of delay and submitted that the President of the applicant trust was not well-versed with income tax proceedings and accordingly, he engaged a tax consultant for filing application for registration under Section

VIMAL CHAND GOKHAROO,SURAT vs. ITO 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 3. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

VIMAL CHAND GOKHAROO,SURAT vs. ITO 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 3. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

VIMAL CHAND GOKHAROO,SURAT vs. ITO 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 3. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds