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 of Income-tax Act, 1961", "Section 200A(1

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

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(1

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(1

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(1

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(1

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(1

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(1

SUSHILA RAJESH YADAV,SILVASSA vs. CIT APPEAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

1. The AO was biased in making huge addition of Rs.15,75,000/- by only\nconsidering cash deposits and not considering withdrawal bank entries of bank\nstatement.\"\n3.\nThe appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 806 days. The assessee has\nfiled an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal.\nIn the affidavit

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

1. I am assessed with Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(3), Surat, MY Permanent Account No. is BERPS5247H. 2. The assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2014-15 was passed by Income-tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(3), Surat. Against this order the appeal was filed before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

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

JAYSHRI GOPALLAL MAHARAJSHRINI SURAT SRUSTI TRUST,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

1)(b). In view of the above, the grounds of appeal are DISMISSED. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order passed u/s 250 r.w.s. 251 of the Act.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) disallowing the claim of exemption under section 12A Jayshri Gopallal Maharajshrini Surat Srusti

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

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Tirupati Shyam Enterprises 2 Tirupati Shyam Enterprises 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

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

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

GHANSHYAM K KEVADIYA HUF,SURAT vs. ITO-1(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this\nappeal is allowed

sections": [ "254(1)", "147", "148", "144", "271(1)(c)", "44AD", "250" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned

GAHNSHYAM K KEVADIYA HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this\nappeal is allowed

sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "147", "148", "144", "44AD", "250" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned and whether

KANTILAL DAYALBHAI RAMBHAI ,SURAT vs. ITO(INT. TAX), SURAT

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

250", "Section 253(3)", "Section 50C", "Section 144", "Section 147", "Section 271(1)(c)", "Section 274", "Section 271F", "Section 55A", "Section 2(14)", "Section 45"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of PAN mismatch without adjudicating on merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned