M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE CIT-I, BARODA

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147 (first proviso). It is not a proviso to proviso in other words. Learned Departmental Representative further fails to dispute that the question whether or not a port terminals Jetty / Trestle is to be treated as plant and machinery is no more res integra since this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision in Kandla Port Trust case

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147 (first proviso). It is not a proviso to proviso in other words. Learned Departmental Representative further fails to dispute that the question whether or not a port terminals Jetty / Trestle is to be treated as plant and machinery is no more res integra since this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision in Kandla Port Trust case

PRUTHVI MUKESHBHAI DHOLAKIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Pruthvi Mukeshbhai Dholakiya, Vs. The Ito,Ward-3(3)(5), 1201-1202, M. Riverview Heights, Surat. Pedar Road, Mota Varachha, Surat – 395006. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arzpd5135H Assessee By Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 17/07/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing. Pruthvi Mukeshbhai Dholakiya 7. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee, relates to addition on account of Gift received of Rs.2,50,000/- from Mother. 8. Succinct facts qua the issue are that ground no.2 raised by the assessee relates to addition of 2,50,000/- made on account

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

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

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

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

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

RAMESHCHANDRA RANGILDAS MEHTA,SURAT vs. ACIT(OSD), WARD3(2)(3), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 97/Srt/2024 (Ay 2010-11) (Physical Hearing) Rameshchandra Rangildas Mehta Assistant Commissioner Of 82, Tribhuvan Society, Ved Road, Income-Tax (Osd), बनाम Surat-395 004 Ward-3(2)(3), Surat, Vs [Pan : Abjpm 8972 H] Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 22.12.2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1). The learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the additions of Rs.35,42,855/- made by the Assessing Officer, considering profit @ 10% of receipts of Rs.3,54,28,550/- received