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

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

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 20/02/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1

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

SHREE SHILDHA VIBHAG JUNGLE KAMDAR SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Shildha Vibhag Jungle Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Kamdar Sahakari Mandli Ward-4, Valsad Vs. At & Post Nana Pondha, Kaprada Road, Valsad-396 065 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaas 6185 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 23.02.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated

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

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 12A(1

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo (Physical Court Hearing) 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat City, Surat-395 002 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलार्थी/Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 882/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Sunita Jajoo 429-432, Golden Point, Near Bsnl Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 [Pan: Aampj 0040 K] बनाम Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Richa Toshniwal. Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23.01.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeals By Separate Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As "Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2024 & 21.04.2023 For Same

221 and Rs.8,099, Total-Rs.39,320/-) 31.03.2003 to 15.07.2010, Transaction Statement at Page 8-10 of Paper Book Index Sales Contract Note at Page No. 1-2 of Paper Book Index Sold through SHCIL Services Limited on recognised Stock Exchange- SEBI registration No. IBN011253839. Bank Statement showing Sale proceeds received on 18.07.2010 and 21.07.2010- vide cheque

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

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 12A of the Act. Admittedly, certain details were called