ANIL SINGH HARIPRASAD SINGH RAJPUT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 859/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Anil Singh Hariprasad Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward- Rajput,135-135, Viththal Nagar 3(2)(1), Surat, Room No.416, बनाम Society, Bapasitram Chowk, Dabholi 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Road, Surat-395 004 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil [Pan : Amnpr 5655 F] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penal proceedings under section 271AAC of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. On the facts

MANISH BHOGILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.687/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manish Bhogilal Shah The Income Tax Officer-3 बनाम/ 6/B, Crown Mansion Navsari – 396 445 V/S. Ground Floor Forjeet Street, Cross Lane, Mumbai – 400 026 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqps 6699 F (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08 /12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27 /02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Manish Bhogilal Shah Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ground 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming invocation of penalty provisions under Section 271AAC, 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Ground 9. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds

RAVINDRANTH J. MISHRA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7, VAPI

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

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) vide order dated 29.09.2017. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1.The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, erred in passing the order u/s 144 without exercising best judgment and completely ignoring the submissions made by the appellant Ravindranath J. Mishra before the CIT(Appeals

SHRI VINAYAK RATILAL MEHTA,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.778 & 724/Srt/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Vinayak Ratilal Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer, A-2, Sundaram Society, Gnfc To Ward-1, Surat. Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch 392011 [Pan: Afqpm6438M The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Vinayak Ratilal Mehta A-2, Ward-1, Surat. Sundaram Society, Gnfc To Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch 392011 [Pan: Afqpm6438M अपीलाथ" / Assessee ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 21.03.2013. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.83,79,425/- out of addition of Rs.1,59,89,020/- being

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, VADODARA vs. SHRI VINAYAK RATILAL MEHTA,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.778 & 724/Srt/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Vinayak Ratilal Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer, A-2, Sundaram Society, Gnfc To Ward-1, Surat. Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch 392011 [Pan: Afqpm6438M The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Vinayak Ratilal Mehta A-2, Ward-1, Surat. Sundaram Society, Gnfc To Zadeshwar Road, Bharuch 392011 [Pan: Afqpm6438M अपीलाथ" / Assessee ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 21.03.2013. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the C.I.T. (A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.83,79,425/- out of addition of Rs.1,59,89,020/- being

SHUSHILABEN PRATAPBHAI THAKOR,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.259/Ahd/2023 (A.Y. 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shushilaben Pratapbhai Thakor Income Tax Officer, 6, Shiv Jal, Shailesh Park Ward-5, Navsari, Room Vs Society, Gandevi Road, Navsari- No.204, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 396445 Bhawan, Near Char Pool, Pan : Adept 7623 H Police Choki, Navsari- 396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

section 249(2): (1) The learned CIT(A) seriously erred in dismissing the appeal without verifying the offline office records that appeal was filed in time. (2) With the Government making filing of appeal before the CIT(A) online, the appellant was obliged to file the appeal online again which unfortunately learned CIT(A) accepted as a date of filing