NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

ii) of Clause 5.1 having heading "Allowing certain expenditure in case of denial of exemption" whereby situation applicable to the appellant trust is explained that in cases of submission of late audit report, entire receipt is taxed and no deduction of expenditure is allowed by the department. Since the amendment is clarificatory being beneficial to the assessee, the appellant would

NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

ii) of Clause 5.1 having heading "Allowing certain expenditure in case of denial of exemption" whereby situation applicable to the appellant trust is explained that in cases of submission of late audit report, entire receipt is taxed and no deduction of expenditure is allowed by the department. Since the amendment is clarificatory being beneficial to the assessee, the appellant would

SHRI JAYESH CHANDULAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO,WARD-3(3)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.50/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2000-01) (Physical Hearing) Jayesh Chandulal Shah, The Ito, Vs. A-74, Saify Society, Near Jain Ward – 3(3)(2), Temple, L. H. Road, Surat Surat – 395006. Old Jurisdiction Ito, Ward- 9(2), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adzps8832Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.02.2020 vide ITA No.50/SRT/2020 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2000-01 made on the 19.08.2009, which was communicated to us on the 08.10.2009. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the 07.12.2009 counting the period of sixty days

NAVBHARAT CHERITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARUCH

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi Jhagadia, Bharuch, Ward-1, Vs. Gujarat, Pin-393115 Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

ii) of Clause 5.1 having heading "Allowing certain expenditure in case of denial of exemption" whereby situation applicable to the appellant trust is explained that in cases of submission of late audit report, entire receipt is taxed and no deduction of expenditure is allowed by the department. Since the amendment is clarificatory, being beneficial to the assessee, the appellant would

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condone these minor delays in filing appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 4. Although, these appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, contain multiple grounds of appeals. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. We note that most

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condone these minor delays in filing appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 4. Although, these appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, contain multiple grounds of appeals. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. We note that most

BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

condone these minor delays in filing appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 4. Although, these appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, contain multiple grounds of appeals. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. We note that most

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

1) of the Act\nwas passed on 31.07.2012 but appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on\n14.02.2024. Neither any convincing reasons of the grounds for the\ninordinate delay in filing appeal was adduced nor any documentary evidence\nin support of the submissions was filed. As per provisions of section 249(3)\nof the Act, the CIT(A) may admit

SHREE BILIMORA VIBHAG ANAVIL MANDAL NUTAN PARK, SHANTI NIKETAN SOCIETY, MORARJI DESAI MARG BILIMORA NA vs. ARI,NAVSARIVS.CIT(EXEMPTION), SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

35 the appellant has mentioned that the intimation order u/s 143(1) dated 26.02.2016 was received by the appellant on the same day. This itself is a sufficient cause for rejection of the condonation request of the appellant. Further the appellant is a trust which has to get its accounts audited every year. It has been regularly filing its return

SHREE BILIMORA VIBHAG ANAVIL MANDAL NUTAN PARK, SHANTI NIKETAN SOCIETY MORORJI DESAI MARG BILIMORA NA vs. ARI,NAVSARIVS.CIT(EXEMPTION), SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

35 the appellant has mentioned that the intimation order u/s 143(1) dated 26.02.2016 was received by the appellant on the same day. This itself is a sufficient cause for rejection of the condonation request of the appellant. Further the appellant is a trust which has to get its accounts audited every year. It has been regularly filing its return

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)

1) of the Act was passed on 31.07.2012 but appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 14.02.2024. Neither any convincing reasons of the grounds for the inordinate delay in filing appeal was adduced nor any documentary evidence in support of the submissions was filed. As per provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit

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)

1) of the Act was passed on 31.07.2012 but appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 14.02.2024. Neither any convincing reasons of the grounds for the inordinate delay in filing appeal was adduced nor any documentary evidence in support of the submissions was filed. As per provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit

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)

1) of the Act was passed on 31.07.2012 but appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 14.02.2024. Neither any convincing reasons of the grounds for the inordinate delay in filing appeal was adduced nor any documentary evidence in support of the submissions was filed. As per provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit

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)

1) of the Act was passed on 31.07.2012 but appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 14.02.2024. Neither any convincing reasons of the grounds for the inordinate delay in filing appeal was adduced nor any documentary evidence in support of the submissions was filed. As per provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit

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)

1) of the Act was passed on 31.07.2012 but appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 14.02.2024. Neither any convincing reasons of the grounds for the inordinate delay in filing appeal was adduced nor any documentary evidence in support of the submissions was filed. As per provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit

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)

1) of the Act was passed on 31.07.2012 but appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 14.02.2024. Neither any convincing reasons of the grounds for the inordinate delay in filing appeal was adduced nor any documentary evidence in support of the submissions was filed. As per provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit

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

1) of the Act\nwas passed on 31.07.2012 but appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on\n14.02.2024. Neither any convincing reasons of the grounds for the\ninordinate delay in filing appeal was adduced nor any documentary evidence\nin support of the submissions was filed. As per provisions of section 249(3)\nof the Act, the CIT(A) may admit

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

condonation of delay are reproduced below: ITA.234/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Pankajbhai K. Savani “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