DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

condone these minor delays in filing appeals and admit these three appeals for hearing on merit. 4. Although, these appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue, contain multiple grounds of appeals. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. We note that most

MOEEN MEMORIAL WELFARE TRUST,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moeen Memorial Welfare Trust Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bangalore Sheri Street, Opp. Petrol Pump, Vs. Olpad, Surat-394540 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadtm 2052 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

section 12AA of the Act, hence such genuine trust should be encouraged and should not be penalized for technical mistake. Therefore, Ld. AR submits that assessee-trust has furnished petition for condonation of delay, and explained the delay is a reasonable way. Therefore, he prays the Bench that delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A) may be condoned

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

DIPIKA AQUA FARM,OLPAD vs. ADDL JCIT (A)-11, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 143(1) of the Act on 25.08.2014 in which CPC considered the net income of the assessee from business and profession of Rs. 10,55,164/- instead of net business income claimed by the assessee at Rs. 98,595/-. Hence, CPC made addition by disallowing expense of Rs. 9,56,569/-. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) observed that

VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD,SURAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.,-1(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 21. The concise and summarized grounds of appeal in Assessee`s appeal, in IT(SS)A No.90/SRT/2022, for AY.2014-15, are reproduced below for ready reference as follows: “(i) Ground nos. 1 and 2: On the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as law, on the subject, the issuance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.,2, SURAT vs. VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 21. The concise and summarized grounds of appeal in Assessee`s appeal, in IT(SS)A No.90/SRT/2022, for AY.2014-15, are reproduced below for ready reference as follows: “(i) Ground nos. 1 and 2: On the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as law, on the subject, the issuance

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

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

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

condone the delay in filing of appeal and allow the appeal to be proceeded with on merit. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: 5. “[1] On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat Vs. Kejriwal

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

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

1)(c) of the Act.” 2. Perusal of record shows that that there is delay of eight days in filing present appeal before Tribunal. The impugned order was passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 21.03.2023 and present appeal filed on 01.06.2023, the Registry pointed out the delay of eight days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed application

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

1)(c) of the Act.” 2. Perusal of record shows that that there is delay of eight days in filing present appeal before Tribunal. The impugned order was passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 21.03.2023 and present appeal filed on 01.06.2023, the Registry pointed out the delay of eight days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed application

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

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law, the\nlearned CIT(Exemption) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the\napplication in Form-10AB filed to grant the fresh approval under clause (iii) of\nfirst proviso of Section 80G(5) of the Act for the renewal of approval granted

ALPESH UMESHCHANDRA,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-1(2) (1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

56,00,753/- treating the said amount as unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Act. The PCIT observed that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and initiated penalty under Section 270A of the Act. The show cause notice under Section 263 dated 05.03.2024 was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee

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

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 CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 15.09.2023. However, the assessee filed the appeal on 29.06.2024. Therefore, there is a delay of 63 days. The assessee