KESHRI EXPORT,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.186/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Keshri Export, Vs. The Ito, 123, Gurunagar Society, Opp. Baroda Ward-3(3)(1), Prestige, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat – 395006. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfk3785D Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Milan Kamble, Sr. Dr 18/07/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2023

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 10. Briefly stated, the relevant material facts are as follows. The assessee has filed his return of income on 30.09.2017, declaring total income of Rs.6,72,826/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Later on, the assessee`s case was selected

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), 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.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 9. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and filed her return of income on 04.03.2015, declaring total income of Rs.4,22,502/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2

OMPRAKASH RAMNIVAS SONI L/H. OF HARISH OMPRAKASH SONI,VAPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above\nterms

2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the\nsubject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making\naddition of Rs.35,00,000/- on account of cash deposit in bank account treated as\nalleged unexplained money u/s.69A of the Income

SHANKARLAL PRAYAGCHAND PUROHIT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Delay condoned. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)” for short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short) for Assessment Year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay was not condoned. The ld. AR, thus, submits that the grounds of appeal are covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue. 5. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR and the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue both submits that the principle of res judicata is not application in income tax cases and each assessment order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay was not condoned. The ld. AR, thus, submits that the grounds of appeal are covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue. 5. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR and the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue both submits that the principle of res judicata is not application in income tax cases and each assessment order