ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG, KAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD., NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

natural justice (audi alteram partem), is without jurisdiction, bad in law, void ab initio, illegal, unjustified and hence, the assessment order is liable to be struck down. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT (Appeals) ought to have found that the assessment order passed by the AO is mere replica

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

natural justice (audi alteram partem), is without jurisdiction, bad in law, void ab initio, illegal, unjustified and hence, the assessment order is liable to be struck down. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT (Appeals) ought to have found that the assessment order passed by the AO is mere replica

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE., NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,, NAVASARI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

natural justice (audi alteram partem), is without jurisdiction, bad in law, void ab initio, illegal, unjustified and hence, the assessment order is liable to be struck down. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT (Appeals) ought to have found that the assessment order passed by the AO is mere replica

SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

natural justice (audi alteram partem), is without jurisdiction, bad in law, void ab initio, illegal, unjustified and hence, the assessment order is liable to be struck down. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT (Appeals) ought to have found that the assessment order passed by the AO is mere replica

SAHADARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

natural justice (audi alteram partem), is without jurisdiction, bad in law, void ab initio, illegal, unjustified and hence, the assessment order is liable to be struck down. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT (Appeals) ought to have found that the assessment order passed by the AO is mere replica

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

justice. ITA Nos.329 & 330/SRT/2025/AYs.2015-16 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition of ₹23,41,300/- u/s 69A, without appreciating that the assessee had furnished an explanation along with documentary evidence. The addition was made

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

justice. ITA Nos.329 & 330/SRT/2025/AYs.2015-16 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition of ₹23,41,300/- u/s 69A, without appreciating that the assessee had furnished an explanation along with documentary evidence. The addition was made

M/S COPER CO. OPERATIVE SUGAR LTD,TAPI vs. ITO WARD-2, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Coper Co-Operative Sugar Ltd., Vs. Ito, At & Post - Dadariya, Tal – Valod, Dist – Ward – 2, Tapi - 394630 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaac5824F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

natural justice and without granting to the appellant a fair, proper and meaningful opportunity and the findings of the CIT (Appeals) that the appellant-society has not responded to the notice of hearing, is wholly incorrect, misleading and in disregard of the records of appeal proceedings demonstrating that the appellant-society had duly complied with the notice of hearing served

SHYAM CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

natural justice. During the survey proceeding, the statement recorded and the partner has stated that this income is on money received of the project of the partnership firm. Survey resulted in disclosing the additional income of Rs.8,20,00,000/- for the A.Y.2015-16. We have credited the same in the profit and loss account, Further, in the computation of income

SHIVAM ENTERPRISE,ALTHAN vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

natural justice. During the survey proceeding, the statement recorded and the partner has stated that this income is on money received of the project of the partnership firm. Survey resulted in disclosing the additional income of Rs.8,20,00,000/- for the A.Y.2015-16. We have credited the same in the profit and loss account, Further, in the computation of income

M/S. GLOBE TEXTILES,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NOW RE-DESIGNATED AS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. Globe Textiles, Vs. Ito, 45-46, Hashimi Estate, Ward – 2(1), Udhna Main Road, Surat. Surat-394 210. [Pan No. Aacfg 2121 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) ..

depreciable assets, which is erroneous and needs 'to be allowed in the interest of natural justice and equity. 2. Without

MUKESH ARVINDLAL VAKHARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

depreciation, petrol, insurance etc. which are nowhere related to earning interest income and therefore assessing officer disallowed the expense of Rs.11,69,488/-. Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia 22. On appeal, ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the assessing officer, therefore assessee is in further appeal before us. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, argued that during

VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED,VAPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VALSAD

In the result, various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Pr.C.I.T., Valsad. 135, 1St Floor, Via House, G.I.D.C. 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Vs. Char Rasta, Vapi, Gujarat, Arcade, Shanti Nagar, India-396195. Tithal Road, Pan: Aaacv 8289 P Valsad-396001. Appellant Respondednt

natural justice. The ld. AR of the assessee by inviting our attention on the computation of total income has pointed out that the assessee has not claimed any such deduction, which are the subject matter of revision proceedings, thus the order is not at all erroneous. The ld. AR of the assessee specifically invited our attention on 12 Vapi Green

M/S. BASE INDUSTRIES LTD.,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD -1, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

natural justice.” Ground No.14: “That, without prejudice, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessee was also prevented buy reasonable and sufficient cause for not producing relevant documents/evidences/material and details before the AO.” In ITA No.2422/AHD/2016, the assessee has raised the following ground grounds:- “01. The order imposing penalty

PRADEEPSINH BACHUBHAI GOHIL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Pradeepsinh Bachubhai Gohil, I.T.O., 304, Kailash Tower, N H No. 8, Ward-4, Vs. Samroli Chikhli, Dist.-Navsari, Navsari. Navsari-396521. Pan No. Aropg 7048 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

natural justice while confirming the addition. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue afresh with direction to supply the copy of remand report of Assessing officer to the assessee and the assessee may be allow liberty to assessee to raise legal ground against

SHRI SUDHIR KAPOORCHAND GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(3), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Sudhir Kapoorchand Gandhi, A.C.I.T., C/O-Ateet Gandhi, 3, Shepway Circle-2(3), Vs. Bungalow, Off Juhu Tara Road, Surat, Azad Lane, Juhu Koliwada, Near

natural justice. 4. Reply of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer noted that outstanding of 14 creditors in the books of assessee since 2008 to 2012 are more than three years. No subsequent payment or transaction with these creditors. The assessee in his reply dated 15/12/2017 stated that when his financial position will improve

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIR. -4, SURAT vs. SHRI HITESHKUMAR LALJIBHAI PATEL, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.295/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Shri Hiteshkumar Laljibhai Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat, Room Patel, 52, Narayanmuni Nagar Vs No.508, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Society, Nani Ved Road, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395004 Pan Aanpp 3560 B 395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

natural justice. On the basis of such observation, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submission of Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue and Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL PUKHRAJ JAIN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.89/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Anil Pukhraj Jain, Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206-2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent)/ "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q ""या"ेप सं Cross Objection No.10/Srt/2021 (A/O Ita No.89/Srt/2017) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) Anil Pukhraj Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206- 2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Vs. Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. Appellant/Co-Objector (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2023

justice. Under the income tax act, proceedings are based on the principle of preponderance of probability and not the law of the evidences. Point : In the support of the contention the CA of the assessee has furnished several details like Party wise purchase and sales, purchase registers, stock registers, ledger account of purchase parties, movement of goods and copy