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

5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very

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

5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very

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

NASIM VAZIR SHAIKH,SANJAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 20/05/2022 and 27/03/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 and 2011-12. Both the appeals

NASIM VAZIR SHAIKH,SANJAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 20/05/2022 and 27/03/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 and 2011-12. Both the appeals

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), Vs. Baug, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat-395006. PAN No. ABLPP 5096 K Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Mitish S. Modi, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22/02/2023 Date of pronouncement 28/02/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals

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), Vs. Baug, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat-395006. PAN No. ABLPP 5096 K Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Mitish S. Modi, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22/02/2023 Date of pronouncement 28/02/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals

SHREE SUIGAM KHODADHOR PANJARA POLE,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condone such delay. Accordingly, the Gujarat High Court directed that the order of rectification under section 154 be quashed 7.3 In the case of Jt. CIT (OSD) v. Gujarat Energy Development Agency [2023] 154 taxmann.com 348/202 ITD 733 (Ahd. - Trib.), the ITAT held that where assessee, a charitable trust, filed audit report in Form No. 10B during assessment proceedings, Assessing

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, 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

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

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

HI-TECH WATER SOLUTION PVT. LTD., ,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1)(1), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.434/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Hi-Tech Water Solution Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Vs. 229-230, Turning Point Complex, (Processed By Ghod Dod Road, Opp. Fire Dcit-Cpc-Bangalore) Station, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadch1709F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vinod Goyal, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2023

section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, the deduction claimed by assessee u/s 80 IA(4) has been disallowed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, (CPC Bangalore) the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer, [Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru]. Aggrieved

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

80(SC) and National Thermal Power Co Ltd. v/s CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC). Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the issue raised in 'additional ground' regarding validity of reassessment proceedings, which goes to the root of the matter needs to be admitted. Hence, we hereby allow

THE PURSHOTTAM FARMERS CO.OP COTTON GINNING & PRESSING SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) The Purshottam Farmers Co. Op D.C.I.T., Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Circle-2(3), Surat, Vs. Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, Jahangirpura Gin, Jahangirpura, Majuragate, Surat, Rander, Surat, Gujarat-395009 Gujarat-395001. Pan No. Aaaat 3000 A Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 7. We find that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made addition/ disallowance of Rs. 2,98,035/- on account of interest income earned from State bank of India and interest of Rs. 29,366 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (DGVCL

SHRI MAHESHBHAI TULSIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(5), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay in filing both the appeals is condoned. 5. Now adverting to the facts of the case in ITA No.382/SRT/2019.The assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 29.03.2010 declaring income of Rs.1,67,143/-. Initially, the case was processed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).Subsequently

SHRI MAHESHBHAI TULSIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(5), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

delay in filing both the appeals is condoned. 5. Now adverting to the facts of the case in ITA No.382/SRT/2019.The assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 29.03.2010 declaring income of Rs.1,67,143/-. Initially, the case was processed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).Subsequently

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