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

TIRUPATI SHYAM ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Tirupati Shyam Enterprise Nfac, Delhi Current F.P. No. 139 Orleaans, Near Jurisdiction: Dy. Cit Circle- Sosyo Circle Udhna Magadalla Vs. 1(1)(1), Road, Surat-395007. Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aagft 3570 Q Appellant Respondent

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 5. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed u/s. 5. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed u/s. 5. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B may kindly be quashed and/or the additions 147 r.w.s 144B may kindly be quashed and/or the additions 147 r.w.s

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

Section 68 of the Act. It was argued by the learned Advocates for the assessees that their clients are ordinary people who have made meagre investments and they cannot be branded as scamsters when big players in the market have been left scot free and in certain other cases, the big players who were also branded as scammers were allowed

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)

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to confirm assessing officer’s addition of Rs.98,037/- u/s 69 of the Act without there being any ITA No.73/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar proof of payment of commission @ 2% of LTCG made by the assessee as per para 15 of assessment order

BHAVIN ARUNBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.456/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Bhavin Arunbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Parvassa Road, Mota Waghchhipa, Ward – 1, Kila Pardi, Valsad – 396001, Vapi Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arypp2459F (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay. 7. At the outset, Shri Mehul Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee, stated that technical issue raised by the assessee goes to the root of the matter. The ld Counsel stated that ground No.3 raised by the assessee relates to the fact that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in reopening

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

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

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

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

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

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

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

Section 68 of the Act. It was argued by the learned Advocates for the assessees that their clients are ordinary people who have made meagre investments and they cannot be branded as scamsters when big players in the market have been left scot free and in certain other cases, the big players who were also branded as scammers were allowed

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

Section 68 of the Act. It was argued by the learned Advocates for the assessees that their clients are ordinary people who have made meagre investments and they cannot be branded as scamsters when big players in the market have been left scot free and in certain other cases, the big players who were also branded as scammers were allowed

JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

Section 68 of the Act. It was argued by the learned Advocates for the assessees that their clients are ordinary people who have made meagre investments and they cannot be branded as scamsters when big players in the market have been left scot free and in certain other cases, the big players who were also branded as scammers were allowed

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

Section 68 of the Act. It was\nargued by the learned Advocates for the assessees that their clients are\nordinary people who have made meagre investments and they cannot be\nbranded as scamsters when big players in the market have been left scot free\nand in certain other cases, the big players who were also branded as scammers\nwere allowed

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.37 & 38/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtualcourt Hearing) State Bank Of India Income Tax Officer (Tds-3) Room No.607, Aaykar Regional Business Office-V, Navsari- Vs. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Tapi, 1St Floor, Shourya Apartment, 395001 Opp. Lunsikul Ground, Navsari- 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacs 8577 K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

condone the delay in both the appeals and admit both the appeals for hearing. 6. Since these two appeals filed by the assessee, contain identical and similar issues, therefore these 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 appeals narrated