SHRI MANSUKH K. VAGHASIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1070/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mansukh K. Vaghasia, Surat Vs. The Ito, Ward-8(3), C-1-102, Subham Residency, B/H Surat. Natvar Nagar, Nana Varachha, Surat-395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acjpv4517A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/04/2022

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 7. Brief facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. Before us, assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 15.03.2011, declaring total income of Rs.1,54,310/- and the same was processed by the Income Tax Department accepting the returned income. 8. Later

SHRI ANURAGRAIJI V. GOSWAMI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1331/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Anuragraji V. Goswami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O. Yogesh B. Shah, Ward-5(1), Surat. 5/458, Haripura, Kaljug Street, Surat-395003 [Pan: Aajpt 4629 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

delay is condoned. Ground no. 1,2 & 3 relates to sustaining of Rs.3,05,200/- and 5. Rs.1,15,390 being income in the hands of the appellant. Though the gift of Rs.3,05,200/- gift worth of Rs.3,00,000/- is received through cheque from Anuragraji V. Goswami v. ITO, Ward-5(1),Surat/ITA. 1331/AHD/2017/A.Y.2006-07 Page

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay of 876 days in filing all the appeals is condoned. 11. Now adverting to the facts of case on merit. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual, filed his return of income for the year under consideration that is assessment year (AY) 2009-10, declaring income of Rs.2,57,673/- on 15.10.2009. Subsequently, case of assessee

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay of 876 days in filing all the appeals is condoned. 11. Now adverting to the facts of case on merit. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual, filed his return of income for the year under consideration that is assessment year (AY) 2009-10, declaring income of Rs.2,57,673/- on 15.10.2009. Subsequently, case of assessee

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay of 876 days in filing all the appeals is condoned. 11. Now adverting to the facts of case on merit. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual, filed his return of income for the year under consideration that is assessment year (AY) 2009-10, declaring income of Rs.2,57,673/- on 15.10.2009. Subsequently, case of assessee

FIRST DASTUR MAHERJI RANA TRUST FUND,SURAT vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. The trusts are stated to be old and operating under the banner \"Parsi Panchayat\". The delay in filing the appeals was 56 days, attributed to the previous Chartered Accountant. The Revenue did not oppose the condonation

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 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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals, are common and identical, therefore these three appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts as well as grounds of appeal

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals, are common and identical, therefore these three appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts as well as grounds of appeal

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals, are common and identical, therefore these three appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts as well as grounds of appeal

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

SHRI SUDIN MAHADEV SANGODKAR,GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Sudin Mahadev Sangodkar, I.T.O., House No. 46B, 1/5 Next To Fab Ward-Daman Vs. India, Alta Mapusa, Bardez, Daman. North Goa, Goa-403507. Ph.9423530599 Email: Smsangodcar@Gmail.Com Pan No. Ajjps 0830 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) vide order dated 22/06/2018 by the ITO, Ward-Daman, Daman for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. Initially, this appeal was filed before Panji Bench of Tribunal on 21/03/2023. However, it was sent to Surat Bench as the assessing officer in the present appeal

SHRI KAMALUDDIN POPATLAL SURANI,VAPI vs. PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.666/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani, Vs. The Pcit, A/12, Golden Park, Kabrastan Road, Valsad Vapi - 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajyps2442M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyaya, Ar Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/01/2025

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that revision order of PCIT, Valsad dated 15.03.2024 has been served electronically through Income-tax Portal. Appeal was filed with the Registry, ITAT, Surat on 10.06.2024, which is late

BAI PIROJBAI MANEKJI PATEL SINGAPOREWALLA ENGLISH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS,SURAT vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

56 each in filing\nappeals of the other 4 cases. The appellant-trusts have filed similar affidavit\nand condonation applications, as in the case of Bai Pirojbai Manekji Patel (ITA\nNo.487/SRT/2025). The delays in filing appeals are condoned for the reasons\ngiven in the above case (supra).\n5.\nBefore deciding the lead case, the following primary facts may be stated

GAURI DHIRENKUMAR SHAH,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.394 & 388/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Gauri Dhirenkumar Shah Income Tax Officer, 1, Brahamin Faliya, Ward-1(4), Vs Ladeshwar, Bharuch Nr. Swaminarayan Temple, Bharuch-392011 Pan No: Ahnps 2989 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

delay of eight days is condoned. Now adverting the merit of the case. (A.Y 11-12) Gauri Dhirenkumar Shah 5. On merit of the case, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that lower authorities have not given fair, reasonable and proper opportunities to assessee. The husband of assessee died during assessment proceedings i.e., on 16.06.2018 and assessee was under

GAURI DHIRENKUMAR SHAH,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.394 & 388/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Gauri Dhirenkumar Shah Income Tax Officer, 1, Brahamin Faliya, Ward-1(4), Vs Ladeshwar, Bharuch Nr. Swaminarayan Temple, Bharuch-392011 Pan No: Ahnps 2989 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

delay of eight days is condoned. Now adverting the merit of the case. (A.Y 11-12) Gauri Dhirenkumar Shah 5. On merit of the case, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that lower authorities have not given fair, reasonable and proper opportunities to assessee. The husband of assessee died during assessment proceedings i.e., on 16.06.2018 and assessee was under

SHANTIBHAI H JOGANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.91/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Shantibhai H Jogani, Income Tax Officer, 4, 2Nd Floor, Old Shakati Vijay Ward-3(3)(4), Surat Vs Society, Varachha Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Surat-395006 Near Majura Gate, Pan : Aglpj 7542 D Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Now adverting the merits of the case. 6. Brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee officer noted that assessee has shown income under section 44AD of the Act. In the income shown under section 44AD, it is mandatory to show the 5 Sh. Shantibhai

BAKER ABDULAZIZ NORAT,PANOLI, BHARUCH, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1(1), BHARUCH, BHARUCH, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1232/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Baker Abdulaziz Norat, Vs. Ito, 107, Panoli Travels, Station Road, Ward – 1(1), Panoli, Bharuch – 394115 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akepn7411Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms Vidhi Pandya, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

56,740/- as against returned income of Rs.4,08,530/-. Subsequently, penalty proceeding u/s 270A of the Act was initiated on 17.03.2021 by issuing show cause notices dated 09.06.2021 and 27.07.2021, requesting to file its reply. The assessee was asked as to why ITA No.1232/SRT/2024/AY 2018-19 Baker Abdulaziz Norat penalty u/s 270A of the Act should not be levied