BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

37 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 263(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai423Kolkata332Delhi270Mumbai264Pune199Bangalore164Hyderabad132Karnataka114Jaipur99Chandigarh76Indore66Ahmedabad65Calcutta56Cuttack54Rajkot48Panaji41Visakhapatnam38Surat37Raipur35Cochin28Nagpur27Amritsar21Patna21Lucknow19Dehradun9SC7Varanasi7Agra6Jabalpur6Jodhpur5Telangana4Guwahati3Allahabad2Himachal Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 263111Section 143(3)65Section 153C20Section 14718Section 14818Addition to Income17Revision u/s 26315Limitation/Time-bar14Condonation of Delay

HARMONY YARNS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 348/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Harmony Yarns Private Vs. The Pcit-1, Limited, Surat Plot-65, 1St Floor Subhash Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Nr. Ram Chowk, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach5895F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

condonation of delay for the same. Further even if we take the amendment on Section 36(1)(va) in regards to due date of payment, the same has been introduced recently and prospectively from 01-04-2021 i.e. AY 2021-22 as stated in the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 2021 and thus the provision does

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 80P(2)(d)10
Deduction10
Disallowance9

VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED,VAPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VALSAD

In the result, various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 387/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Pr.C.I.T., Valsad. 135, 1St Floor, Via House, G.I.D.C. 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Vs. Char Rasta, Vapi, Gujarat, Arcade, Shanti Nagar, India-396195. Tithal Road, Pan: Aaacv 8289 P Valsad-396001. Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 254(1)Section 263

1,22,37,948/- though in fact, the Appellant has clearly shown that the same represents the amount of deferred grant transferred to Profit and Loss Account to meet depreciation on assets acquired out of grants received from Government of India in earlier years prior to the amendment of section 2(24) by inserting clause (xviii) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and duly

SACHIN NOTIFIED AREA,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , SURAT - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 343/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Sachin Notified Area, Vs. The Pcit, Surat-1 Plot No.5719, Unnati Building, Sachin Gidc, Sachin, Surat-394230. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaals0146H Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Appellant By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for the assessment year 2017-18. Grievances raised by the assessee, which being interconnected, will be taken up together, are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 882/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

condone the delay in filing in some of the present appeals. The argument on behalf of the assessee was that on account of not filing the appeals by the revenue within the period of limitation, their vested right to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was taken away. We have rejected such an argument firstly by holding

HARIKRISHNA JEWELS,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SURAT

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

ITA 354/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.354/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Court Hearing) Harikrishna Jewels, Principal Commissioner Of 201, Sunstar Building, Opp. बनाम/ Income Tax-1,, Surat, Room New Patidar Bhavan, No.123, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Vs. Mahidharpura, Surat-395 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil 003 Hospital, Surat -395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagfh 3864 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2025

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 25.12.2019. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr.CIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263, although the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

ASHWINKUMAR ARBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

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

ITA 653/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Ashwinkumar Arban Co- Principal Commissioner Of Operative Society Ltd., Income Tax-1, Surat. Vs. 7-8, Hiranagar-2, Patel Nagar, Varachha A.K. Road, Surat- 395008 (Gujarat) Pan No. Aabta 0698 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in passing revisionary order u/s 263

RUNI IMPEX,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(2), SURAT

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

ITA 96/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra Sindhu, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

1. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Surat, erred in passing the order under section 263 of the Act, even though it is capricious in nature and has been made ignoring the established and undisputed facts. The said order is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable provisions of the Act.The order passed

RUNI IMPEX,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2), SURAT

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

ITA 221/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra Sindhu, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

1. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Surat, erred in passing the order under section 263 of the Act, even though it is capricious in nature and has been made ignoring the established and undisputed facts. The said order is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicable provisions of the Act.The order passed

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 552/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

condone the delay in filing in some of the present appeals. The\nargument on behalf of the assessee was that on account of not filing the\nappeals by the revenue within the period of limitation, their vested right to\navail the benefit of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was taken away. We have\nrejected such an argument firstly by holding

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 183/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

condone the delay in filing in some of the present appeals. The argument on behalf of the assessee was that on account of not filing the appeals by the revenue within the period of limitation, their vested right to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was taken away. We have rejected such an argument firstly by holding

JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 185/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

condone the delay in filing in some of the present appeals. The argument on behalf of the assessee was that on account of not filing the appeals by the revenue within the period of limitation, their vested right to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was taken away. We have rejected such an argument firstly by holding

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 184/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

condone the delay in filing in some of the present appeals. The argument on behalf of the assessee was that on account of not filing the appeals by the revenue within the period of limitation, their vested right to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was taken away. We have rejected such an argument firstly by holding

ALPESH UMESHCHANDRA,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-1(2) (1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 816/SRT/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 270(1)(c)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 68

delay is condoned. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that as per Section 275 no order imposing of penalty under Chapter 21 shall be passed in case where the relevant assessment order other order is subject matter of an appeal

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

ITA 1501/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

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 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36Section 43A

263 itself is not maintainable, therefore there is no need to deal with the other issues. 10. In the result net result, appeal is allowed.” 10. And also in CIT vs. Roadmaster Industries of India Ltd., it is held as “A revisional order can be passed only after giving an opportunity of hearing to assessee. 11. After appreciating the facts

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

ITA 2998/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

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 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36Section 43A

263 itself is not maintainable, therefore there is no need to deal with the other issues. 10. In the result net result, appeal is allowed.” 10. And also in CIT vs. Roadmaster Industries of India Ltd., it is held as “A revisional order can be passed only after giving an opportunity of hearing to assessee. 11. After appreciating the facts

SHRI MURLI FATANDAS SAWLANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3), SURAT

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

ITA 215/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.215/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Hearing) Shri Murli Fatandas Sawlani, Vs. The Ito, Ward – 1(3)(3), C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, Surat. 9Th Floor, Sopphire Ciomplex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adeps9862M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ketan Shah, Ar & Shri Aman K. Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/04/2023 17/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 30.03.2016. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informs the Bench that appeal filed by the assessee for AY.2013-14 is barred by limitation by one thousand eight hundred twenty five (1825) days. The Ld. Counsel submitted the petition for condonation of delay

JAYKANT UTTAMCHAND SHAH,VAPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 276/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. Pr.CIT has erred in passing revisionary order u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 setting aside the order

RAJESH C DALAL-HUF,SURAT vs. ADDL/JT/DEPUTY/ASST CIT/NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTER DELHI , DELHI

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

ITA 249/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Rajesh C. Dalal-Huf, A.C.I.T., P-260, Old Gidc Estate, National E-Assessment Vs. Katargam, Surat-395004. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aalhr 4363 J Appellant Respondednt

Section 24Section 254(1)Section 270A(1)Section 274

263 under Section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and deduction of interest expenses on borrowed capital of Rs. 2,43,000/-. The Assessing Officer noted that there was no history of assessee showing income from house property or any interest expenses on borrowed capital/loan for preceding years. The assessee was issued show cause

SHRI KAMALUDDIN POPATLAL SURANI,VAPI vs. PCIT, VALSAD

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

ITA 666/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.666/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani, Vs. The Pcit, A/12, Golden Park, Kabrastan Road, Valsad Vapi - 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajyps2442M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyaya, Ar Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/01/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 253(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 56(2)(x)

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT, Valsad has erred in law and on fact to revise appellant’s assessment u/s 263 of the IT Act, ignoring the fact and law that even AO’s reopening of assessment for AY.2018-19is contrary to the provisions of the law. ITA No.666/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani 2. On facts

SHHLOK TRITON ASSOCIATES ,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 638/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.638/Srt/2024 Assessment Year:(2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shhlok Triton Associates, Vs. Pcit – 1, F.P. No. 388, Paikee Udhna Surat Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclfs6819A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263

263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act’) dated 04.03.2024 by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat [in short ‘PCIT’] for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are as follows: “(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well