MOEEN MEMORIAL WELFARE TRUST,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moeen Memorial Welfare Trust Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore Sheri Street, Opp. Petrol Pump, Vs. Olpad, Surat-394540 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadtm 2052 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

250 of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Asst. CIT, (CPC) while issuing intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act has erred in determining total income of assessee at Rs.3,70,850/- by disallowing expenses of Rs.3,70,850/- on the ground that registration

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

condoning delay, and mere technicalities or liberal interpretations cannot overcome the law of limitation. The assessee failed to provide any cogent reason or documentary evidence to justify the extensive delay.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 250

SUSHILA RAJESH YADAV,SILVASSA vs. CIT APPEAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

condoning the delay.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 253(3) of the Income

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SAIYEDPURA SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS CPC, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years (AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals before the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALTRET HOUSE, SAIYEDPURA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years (AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals before the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICXER, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years (AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals before the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years (AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals before the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years (AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals before the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years (AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals before the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

SHRI PANKAJBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI SAVANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.234/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Pankajbhai Karamshibhai Savani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C-201, Saimilan Residence, Sudama Surat. Chowk, Mota Varachha, Surat - 395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Berps5247H (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Ashwin K. Parekh, Ca Assessee By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 26/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2023

condone the delay. 10. On merits, Learned Counsel submitted that order passed by the Ld CIT(A) is an ex parte order without adjudicating the various issues on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the facts narrated in the statement of facts and also not considered the facts narrated in assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed

TIRUPATI SHYAM ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Tirupati Shyam Enterprise Nfac, Delhi Current F.P. No. 139 Orleaans, Near Jurisdiction: Dy. Cit Circle- Sosyo Circle Udhna Magadalla Vs. 1(1)(1), Road, Surat-395007. Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aagft 3570 Q Appellant Respondent

250 being passed. 3) That I came to know about the order only when my 3) That I came to know about the order only when my 3) That I came to know about the order only when my Counsel checked the status of the appeal on ITD Portal, Counsel checked the status of the appeal on ITD Portal, Counsel

RAMESHCHANDRA BUDHIYABHAI AHIR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.621/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rameshchandra Budhiyabhai Ahir, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Pilutha Faliyu, At & Post – Ward-1, Bardoli, Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Siyalaj, Tal – Magrol, Dist – Surat, Surat – 394110 Bsnl Building, Station Road, Bardoli-394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alfpa7625Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay of 37 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merit, Ld. Counsel contended that order passed by the Assessing Officer is under section 144 of the Act and order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is also an ex parte order. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not receive the notices of hearing, therefore

MUKHTAR RAMZAN SHAIKH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

condone the delay in both appeals of the assessee. 11. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.628/SRT/2023, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.1(in ITA No.628/SRT/2023), therefore, I dismiss ground No.1 raised by the assessee, as “not pressed”. 12. Now, I take ground

MUKHTAR RAMZAN SHAIKH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

condone the delay in both appeals of the assessee. 11. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.628/SRT/2023, at the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press Ground No.1(in ITA No.628/SRT/2023), therefore, I dismiss ground No.1 raised by the assessee, as “not pressed”. 12. Now, I take ground

BHAVIN ARUNBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Parvassa Road, Mota Waghchhipa, Ward – 1, Kila Pardi, Valsad – 396001, Vapi Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arypp2459F (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 or even the factum of ex-parte order of Ld. CIT(A) being passed was not within my knowledge. It was only when Mehul Shah, partner of the firm Rasesh Shah and Co. was travelling to Dubai in end of April 2023 and he met my brother Mr. Himanshu Patel through a common connect and my brother Mr. Himanshu

KAMALDEEP HARCHARANJITSINGH DANG,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.408/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) Kamaldeep Harcharanjitsingh Vs. The Ito, Dang, Ward – 3(1)(1), 79A, Silver Oak Farm, Road Surat No.4, Ghitorni, New Delhi – 110030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acepd3949B (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay. 10. On merit, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order without adjudicating the issue on merit. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order

VIJAYBHAI BOOKBINDER,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD- 3(2)(10), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of the\nappeal is allowed and ground No

condonation of delay in filing\nappeal under section 249(3) of the Act. Further as per section 250(1), the Id\nCIT

RAMESHBHAI SAVJIBHAI DEVANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(5), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.65/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rameshbhai Savjibhai Devani Income Tax Officer, 7312/4 G.I.D.C., Road No.7/73, Ward-1(2)(5), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Sachin, Surat-394230 (Gujarat) Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 392001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Addpd 4518 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

250 of the IT Act on 08.04.2022 for AY 2017-18. As such, the appeal ITA No.65/SRT/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Rameshbhai S Devani against above order ought to have been filed within 60 days of receipt of above order. However, I could not file appeal before the above date and there is a delay in filing appeal owing to reasons