KIRANBEN YOGESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-2 (2)(2), SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Smt.Kiranben Yogeshbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(2), Room No.625, 6Th At & Post: Sosak, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Sura-394540. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxapp0342K (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Smt. Manjulaben Kiritbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), Post Orma, Taluka Olpad, Dist: Surat. Surat-394540. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxapp0220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Assessee By Revenue By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/ 08/2022

5. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue opposed the prayer for condonation for delay. 6. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including

MANJULABEN KIRITBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD - 2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Smt.Kiranben Yogeshbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(2), Room No.625, 6Th At & Post: Sosak, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Sura-394540. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxapp0342K (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Smt. Manjulaben Kiritbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), Post Orma, Taluka Olpad, Dist: Surat. Surat-394540. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxapp0220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Assessee By Revenue By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/ 08/2022

5. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue opposed the prayer for condonation for delay. 6. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including

SHRI NATWAR R BHARDWAJ,,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-1(2) (3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.1718/Ahd/2017 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Natwar R Bhardwaj Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(3), Aaykar 310, Chandanvan Vs Bhavan, Majura Gate, Apartment, B/S Children Surat Hospital, Majura Gate, Surat Pan No. Afvpb 0248 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) on 23.03.2015. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Sh. Natwar R Bhardwaj has erred

SHRI LALJIBHAI KALUBHAI MIYANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., A/31, 32 Ramdevpir Nagar, Ward 3(3)(2), Vs. Varachha Road, Varachha, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Aempm 3134 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Shri Laljibhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., 83, Shirdidham Society, Hira Ward 3(3)(5), Vs. Baug, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ablpp 5096 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the contents of application for condonation of delay. We find that the assessee has sought condonation of delay basically on two counts i.e. (i) the assessee was pursuing his remedy bonafidely before the Assessing Officer by filing rectification order, against the order giving effect in pursuance of order

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI KALUBHAI MIYANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Jivrajbhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., A/31, 32 Ramdevpir Nagar, Ward 3(3)(2), Vs. Varachha Road, Varachha, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Aempm 3134 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Shri Laljibhai Kalubhai Miyani, I.T.O., 83, Shirdidham Society, Hira Ward 3(3)(5), Vs. Baug, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ablpp 5096 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the contents of application for condonation of delay. We find that the assessee has sought condonation of delay basically on two counts i.e. (i) the assessee was pursuing his remedy bonafidely before the Assessing Officer by filing rectification order, against the order giving effect in pursuance of order

RUPAL DEVANG NAIK ,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-4, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the 65-day delay in filing the appeal, finding it unintentional. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the assessee.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "148", "144", "50C

PRAMODBHAI BALUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.622/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Pramodbhai Balubhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, D-204, Capital Status, Karan Park Ward- 3(1)(3), Road, Adajan, Surat – 395005. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adppp8613C (Assessee) (Respondent)

50C of the Act cannot involve for transaction of agriculture land. 3. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to agree with the views of the AO that deduction u/s 54EC at Rs.29,60,000/- w.r.t. investment in NHAI Bonds was not allowable as it was allotted on 31.05.2012 i.e. beyond 6 months period from

VIJAY NAGINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Vijay Naginbhai Patel, I.T.O., 52, Hari Har Society, Katargam Main Ward 3(2)(4), Vs. Road, Surat-395004. Surat. Pan No. Abrpp 3832 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 50C of the Act. It was also noted that the assessee kept 25% share from the said land as a purchaser. The Assessing officer calculated the assessee’s 25% share as of Rs. 9,56,862/-. The assessee filed his reply and stated that the assessee has sold 75% of the land and 25% is kept for himself

RANJITLAL CHHAGANLAL SHAH,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, NAVSARI

5 Ranjitlal Chhaganlal Shah Vs ITO the present case and the decision of Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Faisal Hameed Vs ITAT & Anr (supra), we find that the assessee is able to show a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Now adverting

HARIVADANBHAI MAGANLAL PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

condone the delay of 15 days in the assessee’s appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Succinct facts qua the issue are that assessee before us is an individual. The four co-owners had sold immovable properties at Rs.3,14,17,500/- in which assessee’s share is shown at Rs.62,83,500/-. On going through the sale

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of delay of 25 days in filing this appeal. In the affidavit, it is submitted that notices of hearing were not received to the e-mail Id i.e. ‘amishkumarrania@gmail.com’, which was given in Form No.35 at the time of filing appeal. The notices of hearing were sent

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO WARD-1, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of delay of 25 days in filing this appeal. In the affidavit, it is submitted that notices of hearing were not received to the e-mail Id i.e. ‘amishkumarrania@gmail.com’, which was given in Form No.35 at the time of filing appeal. The notices of hearing were sent

LATE CHIMANLAL JERAMBHAI BHAGAT LEGAL HEIR MINAXI RAKESHBHAI KAHAR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, VAPI

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.45/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Lt.Chimanlal Jerambhai Bhagat Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ Legal Heir Minaxi Rakeshbhai Vapi -396 191 Vs. Kahar, Flat No.104, Lake Castle, Pal, Nr. Jainam, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb 6752 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mukesh Mandowara, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act without considering the actual cost of acquisition, conversion and development cost. ITA No.45/Srt/2025 A.Y 12-13 Lt. Chimanlal J Bhagat 2. Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of unexplained cash deposited in bank account of Rs.6,32,000/-. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts

HETALKUMAR CHANDRAKANTBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(7), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Hetalkumar Chandrakantbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, A-371/3, Sundervan Raw House, Nr. Ward – 1(3)(7), Subhash Garden, Jahangirabad, Surat Bhesan, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bkrpp5151R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. He submitted that the assessee was negligent, inactive and not diligent. 6. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of delay in filing appeal. In the affidavit, it is submitted that the appellant came

BHAVANABEN PRAVINCHANDRABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.71/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhavnaben Pravinchandrabhai Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Patel Ward-1(3)(6), Surat, 303, Vs. 16D/183/6 Shiv Shaki Bhavan, Income Tax Office, Anavil Opp. Rupli Chinema, Ram Business Centre, Adajan, Surat- Nagar, Rander Road, Surat-395 395 007 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bgfpp 0968 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 26.05.2023 by the National Face Less Appeal Centre (NFAC),Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

HITENDRASINH CHANDRASINH BAKROLA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

50C although the Assessing Officer has not made any reference of deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) in the assessment order means in a way the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted that Section 68 or Section 69 is not invokable because the deeming provisions of Section 68/69 and Section 56(2)(vii)(c) are mutually exclusive. The Department

MAHEBOOB ABBAS SHAIKH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(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 13.01.2025 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