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

condonation of delay for filing form 10B whereby it has been held by various judicial pronouncements that audit report can be filed at even appellate stage more particularly as held by the jurisdictional High Court in case of Trust for Reaching The Unreached Through Trustee v. CIT(Exemption) (2021) 279 Taxman 229 (Guj) that a trust cannot be denied exemption

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

41,364/- (7,68,905 minus 27,541,) towards Dividend received from other Co- operative Society deduction disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which is voidab initio hence rejection of deduction is bad in law. 4. The Learned CIT(A)/ NFAC has erred in rejecting the delay condone

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

41,364/- (7,68,905 minus 27,541,) towards Dividend received from other Co- operative Society deduction disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which is voidab initio hence rejection of deduction is bad in law. 4. The Learned CIT(A)/ NFAC has erred in rejecting the delay condone

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

41,364/- (7,68,905 minus 27,541,) towards Dividend received from other Co- operative Society deduction disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which is voidab initio hence rejection of deduction is bad in law. 4. The Learned CIT(A)/ NFAC has erred in rejecting the delay condone

MOGAR PARTAPORE VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

41,364/- (7,68,905 minus 27,541,) towards Dividend received from other Co- operative Society deduction disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which is voidab initio hence rejection of deduction is bad in law. 4. The Learned CIT(A)/ NFAC has erred in rejecting the delay condone

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

41,364/- (7,68,905 minus 27,541,) towards Dividend received from other Co- operative Society deduction disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which is voidab initio hence rejection of deduction is bad in law. 4. The Learned CIT(A)/ NFAC has erred in rejecting the delay condone

BAIJNATH GOEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1339/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Baijnath Goel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 701, Prayag Residency, Parle Point, 1(2)(1), Surat, Room # 116, बनाम B/H Sargam Shopping Centre, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Surat-395 007 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil [Pan : Afipg 6263 N] Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

condoning the delay in filing first appeal before him. 6. Now, before us, the Ld.AR of the assessee has explained the delay in filing appeal before Ld.CIT(A). On considering the contention of Ld. AR of the assessee and the fact that there was delay of only 41 days in filing appeal before CIT(A). Moreover, the copy of assessment

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

SHRI MANSUKHBHAI NARANBHAI MAKHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), SURAT, SRUAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.376/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mansukhbhai Naranbhai Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), Makhani, Surat. 21, Radheshyam Society, Op. Momai Complex, Mota Varachha, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepp7596H (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Jayantibhai Parbhubhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), Plot No.10, 11, 12, Patel Surat. Kibutz, Opp. Padaria Mahllo, Adajan, Surat-395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acvpp5038L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.562/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kalubhai Manjibhai Kothia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), 41, Shree Ramnagar Society, Surat. Hirabaug, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpk1424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/11/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

41, Shree Ramnagar Society, Surat. Hirabaug, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACRPK1424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR 22/11/2022 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 09/12/2022 ITA Nos. 562, 376 & 377/SRT/2019/AY.2014-15 Kalubhai M. Kothia, Mansukhbhai N. Makhani & Jayantibhai P. Patel आदेश / ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI

SHRI JAYANTIBHAI PARBHUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.376/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mansukhbhai Naranbhai Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), Makhani, Surat. 21, Radheshyam Society, Op. Momai Complex, Mota Varachha, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepp7596H (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Jayantibhai Parbhubhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), Plot No.10, 11, 12, Patel Surat. Kibutz, Opp. Padaria Mahllo, Adajan, Surat-395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acvpp5038L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.562/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kalubhai Manjibhai Kothia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), 41, Shree Ramnagar Society, Surat. Hirabaug, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpk1424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/11/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

41, Shree Ramnagar Society, Surat. Hirabaug, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACRPK1424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR 22/11/2022 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 09/12/2022 ITA Nos. 562, 376 & 377/SRT/2019/AY.2014-15 Kalubhai M. Kothia, Mansukhbhai N. Makhani & Jayantibhai P. Patel आदेश / ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI

KALUBHAI MANJIBHAI KOTHIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.376/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mansukhbhai Naranbhai Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), Makhani, Surat. 21, Radheshyam Society, Op. Momai Complex, Mota Varachha, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepp7596H (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Jayantibhai Parbhubhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), Plot No.10, 11, 12, Patel Surat. Kibutz, Opp. Padaria Mahllo, Adajan, Surat-395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acvpp5038L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.562/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kalubhai Manjibhai Kothia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), 41, Shree Ramnagar Society, Surat. Hirabaug, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpk1424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/11/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

41, Shree Ramnagar Society, Surat. Hirabaug, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACRPK1424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR 22/11/2022 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 09/12/2022 ITA Nos. 562, 376 & 377/SRT/2019/AY.2014-15 Kalubhai M. Kothia, Mansukhbhai N. Makhani & Jayantibhai P. Patel आदेश / ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI

OM SAI STONE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(4), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) both dated 12/05/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. In both these

OM SAI STONE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(4), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) both dated 12/05/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. In both these

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

41 rule 33 read with Section 260A (7) of the Act confers ample powers on this Court to interfere with the orders of the learned Tribunal. 95. Regarding the burden of proof in a case arising under Section 68 of the Act, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in CIT Nippun

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n7. The Id. AR of the assessee did not press ground No.4 in ITA No. 41/SRT/2024, the same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.\n8. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate development. It belongs to the Laxminarayan

RADHA MADHAV ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARK,VAPI vs. ACIT, CENTARL CIRCLE-1, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee did not press ground No.4 in ITA No. 41/SRT/2024, the same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 8. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate development. It belongs to the Laxminarayan

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee did not press ground No.4 in ITA No. 41/SRT/2024, the same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 8. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate development. It belongs to the Laxminarayan

RADHA MADHAV ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARK,VALSAD vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee did not press ground No.4 in ITA No. 41/SRT/2024, the same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 8. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate development. It belongs to the Laxminarayan