THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed

VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR PROP. OF ADITI EXPORTS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed

MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI PROP. SHRUSHTI ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, - 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed

SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA PROP. OF BRIGHT DIAMONDS,SURATY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed

PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA PROP. OF DEEKSHA TRADING ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), , SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

condone the delay in these three appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 19. Since, the issue involved in these remaining six cross-appeals are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others consolidated order is being passed

NAKODA SYNTEX PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 44/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) B. G. Jain Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), 202, Shyam Apartment, In Kakadia Surat. Complex Lane, Opp. Kakadia Complex, Above Dr. Pokhran’S Clinic, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. E-Mail: Dbjain@Nakodaltd.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8848A आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 582/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), 401, 4Th Floor, Union Trade Centre, Surat. Beside Apple Hospital, Udhna Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat-395002. E-Mail: Dbjain@Gmail.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn7281K Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) 26/07/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

44 & 582/SRT/2019/AY.2012-13 B. G. Jain Investments P. Ltd. & Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd. 4. Learned Counsel contended that Director of assessee-company who used to look, taxation matters, was in jail therefore, appeal could not be filed on time. The Counsel, thus stated that assessee has explained the reasons of delay and sufficient cause for delay, therefore delay may be condoned

B.G.JAIN INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 44/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) B. G. Jain Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), 202, Shyam Apartment, In Kakadia Surat. Complex Lane, Opp. Kakadia Complex, Above Dr. Pokhran’S Clinic, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. E-Mail: Dbjain@Nakodaltd.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8848A आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 582/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), 401, 4Th Floor, Union Trade Centre, Surat. Beside Apple Hospital, Udhna Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat-395002. E-Mail: Dbjain@Gmail.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn7281K Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) 26/07/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

44 & 582/SRT/2019/AY.2012-13 B. G. Jain Investments P. Ltd. & Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd. 4. Learned Counsel contended that Director of assessee-company who used to look, taxation matters, was in jail therefore, appeal could not be filed on time. The Counsel, thus stated that assessee has explained the reasons of delay and sufficient cause for delay, therefore delay may be condoned

SHRI MODH PATNI GHANCHI GNATI PUNCH TRUST,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.88/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shri Modh Patni Ghanchi Gnati Income Tax Officer, Punch Trust, Vs. Ward-2(3)(6), Bahulbaug, Prichhadi Road, Surat Haripura, Surat-395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts 2898 D (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent)

44,820/- and accumulation of income u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act, to the tune of Rs.76,775/-. The CPC / Assessing Officer while making rectification order u/s 154 of the Act, denied the claim of assessee and made adjustment solely on the reason that the assessee did not file audit report in Form-10B. Against the order passed under

A. K. BUILDERS,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) A.K. Builders, I.T.O., Jay Apartment, Kathiria, Nani Daman Ward, Vs. Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut)- Daman. 396210. Pan No. Aamfa 7826 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

delay of 44 days in filing appeal is condoned. 6. On merit, the ld. AR for the assessee submits that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in an ex parte order without considering the merit of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee without adjudicating the various grounds of appeal as per mandate

SHAILESH DEVRAJBHAI PADMANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.551/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Hearing) Shailesh Devrajbhai Padmani Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(5), बनाम/ A/503, Swarg Residency, Surat, Room No. 608, 6Nd Floor, Vs. Laxmikant Ashram Road, Nr. Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Hathiwala Mandir, Surat-395 Surat-395 001 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aoupp 6320 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 69A of the I.T. Act as unexplained money. 5. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC may please be deleted. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of appeal.” 3. In the instant

BASANTILAL TARBA,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-3(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.512/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Bansntilal Tarba Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), बनाम/ 429/1023, Sundarnagar, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs. Ahimsa Circle, Bhilwara, Surat-395 001 Rajasthan- 311 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afipt 1037 P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 24.01.2024 by the National Face Less Appeal Centre (NFAC),Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s. 144 r.w.s

DINESH INDIA COMPANY,SURAT vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 1(2), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Dinesh India Company, A.C.I.T., 5019, World Trade Centre, Ring Circle-1(2), Vs. Road, Surat-395001. Surat. Pan No. Aajfd 9144 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and trading of Tobacco Gutka and other 3 Dinesh India Company Vs ACIT Tobacco products. The assessee filed its return of income on 29/08/2017declaring income

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

44,26,328/- (being 50% of Rs.2,88,52,656/-) as profit element of on-money receipts without considering that the said plots were not sold to the parties mentioned in the loose papers.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming addition

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)

44,26,328/- (being 50% of Rs.2,88,52,656/-) as profit element of on-money receipts without considering that the said plots were not sold to the parties mentioned in the loose papers. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming addition

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)

44,26,328/- (being 50% of Rs.2,88,52,656/-) as profit element of on-money receipts without considering that the said plots were not sold to the parties mentioned in the loose papers. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming addition

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)

44,26,328/- (being 50% of Rs.2,88,52,656/-) as profit element of on-money receipts without considering that the said plots were not sold to the parties mentioned in the loose papers. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming addition