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

section 144 in making the addition of Rs., 6.12 Crore for the want of explanation. We find that before ld CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. The submissions of the assessee are recorded in para 5.0 of order of ld CIT(A). In the submissions the assessee stated that he is in the business of transportation

DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT vs. SURAT CT SCAN PVT LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.505/Srt/2019(Ay 2008-09) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Surat Ct Scan Private Ltd., 1St Floor, Yash Plaza Income Tax Officer, Vs Complex, Dhatigara Street, Circle-2(1)(2),Room No. Nanpura, 205, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395001 Majura Gate, Pan No. Aaics 1581 K Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

depreciation of Rs.2,61,180/- claimed by assessee on the building is required to be disallowed. The Assessing Officer recorded that despite giving opportunities and serving notice by way of affixation, no response was made by assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144

CHANDULAL A.SHAH(HUF),SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, Ind for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं././././I.T.A Nos.83 & 84/Srt/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2000-01 & 2004-05 1.Chandulal Amrutlal Shah (Huf), V. Income Tax Officer, Bunglow No.74, Saifee Society, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat. L.H. Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aaahc 8116 R] 2.Chandulal Amrutlal Shah, V. Income Tax Officer, Bunglow No.74, Saifee Society, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat. L.H. Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Adaps 5844 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

144 read with section 254 of the Act on 20.03.2014. The assessee has again filed an appeal before CIT (A) who had confirmed the addition made by the AO. The assessee is therefore, now in appeal before this Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee referred assessment order made in consequence of Tribunal order kg addition

ITO, WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT vs. DHAVAL KIRTIBHAI SHAH, SURAT

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपील./Itano.147/Srt/2020 & Cross Objection No.16/Srt/2020 [Arising Out Of An Ita No.147/Srt/2020] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Dhaval Kiritbhai Shah, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat. A-1103, Regent Residency, Green City Road, Pal, Surat-395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Avmps8446H (Assessee) (Respondent / Co-Objector)

section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 31.08.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of excess claim

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA vs. ANSUYA PUSHPVIJAYSINH PARMAR , SILVASSA

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue as well as all the three cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Ita Nos. 769 To 771/Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act as the assessee has not maintained the stock register for the relevant period and failed to disclose stock details in her audit report. The Assessing Officer further observed that the GP rate in respect of petroleum business is estimated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA vs. ANSUYA PUSPAVIJAYSINH PARMAR, SILVASSA

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue as well as all the three cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Ita Nos. 769 To 771/Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act as the assessee has not maintained the stock register for the relevant period and failed to disclose stock details in her audit report. The Assessing Officer further observed that the GP rate in respect of petroleum business is estimated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA vs. ANSUYA PUSHPVIJAYSINH PARMAR, SILVASSA

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue as well as all the three cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Ita Nos. 769 To 771/Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2017-18

Section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act as the assessee has not maintained the stock register for the relevant period and failed to disclose stock details in her audit report. The Assessing Officer further observed that the GP rate in respect of petroleum business is estimated

THE WANKA VIVIDH KARYAKARI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD,TAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2 BARDOLI, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.470/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Vs At & Po Wanka, Taluka-Nizar, Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Tapi-394370 Building, Opp. Jalaram Akshaymodi40@Gmail.Com Temple, Station Road, Pan No: Aahft 1009 K Bardoli-394601 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

144 of the Act, without appreciating the past assessment “records” of the appellant co.op.society is purely on misleading, misconception, arbitrary and perverse observations and hence, being without jurisdiction, bad in law, in-valid, illegal, unwarranted of facts is liable to be quashed. The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances

RAIYANI BROTHERS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.222-224/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08,2008-09 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Raiyani Brothers The Income Tax Officer, V 9, Dumaswala Compound, Ward-3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Haribaug, Varachha Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Assessee) (Revenue)

depreciation 10. Whether the provisions of section 150(1) are No applicable. If the reply is in the affirmative, facts may be stated against item No.11 and it may also be brought out that the provisions of sec 150(2) would not stand in the way of initiating proceedings u/s 147 11. Reasons for the belief that income has escaped

RAIYANI BROTHERS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.222-224/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08,2008-09 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Raiyani Brothers The Income Tax Officer, V 9, Dumaswala Compound, Ward-3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Haribaug, Varachha Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Assessee) (Revenue)

depreciation 10. Whether the provisions of section 150(1) are No applicable. If the reply is in the affirmative, facts may be stated against item No.11 and it may also be brought out that the provisions of sec 150(2) would not stand in the way of initiating proceedings u/s 147 11. Reasons for the belief that income has escaped

RAIYANI BROTHERS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.222-224/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08,2008-09 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Raiyani Brothers The Income Tax Officer, V 9, Dumaswala Compound, Ward-3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Haribaug, Varachha Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Assessee) (Revenue)

depreciation 10. Whether the provisions of section 150(1) are No applicable. If the reply is in the affirmative, facts may be stated against item No.11 and it may also be brought out that the provisions of sec 150(2) would not stand in the way of initiating proceedings u/s 147 11. Reasons for the belief that income has escaped

KOMAL INDSTRIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Srt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Komal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income B-904, International Commerce Tax-1, Aaykar Bhawan, Nr. Majura Centre, Ring Road, Near Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Kadiwala School, Surat–395002. Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck6228Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By None (Written Submissions) राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/01/2023 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2023

144 of the Act. In this case, clause (a) of the Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the IT., Act 1961 is clearly applicable since the AO concerned has passed the assessment order without making enquires or verification which should have been made in respect of the issues depicted in the foregoing paragraphs and has allowed excess relief in respect

KIRTIKUMAR NAGINDAS SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.281/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Kirtikumar Nagindas Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ A-1103, Regent Residency, Circle-1(3), Surat (Current Jurisdiction Vs. Nr. Saurabh Society, Pal, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat-394 510 Surat, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Center, Adajan-Hazira Road, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Anjps 9031 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 16.01.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/ Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated

GEETA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT., SURAT

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1322/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Geeta Prints Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 150, Gidc, Pandesara, Vs. Ward -1(1)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat-394 221 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg 88182R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 18.11.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/ Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 144

SHREE CHALTHAN VIBHAG KHAND SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kambleshree Chalthan Vibhag Khand Income Tax Officer, Vs. Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Ward-1, At. & Po. Chalthan, Bardoli. Tal.Palsana, Surat-394305. [Pan : Aaaac0477A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akshay M Modi, Ar Respondent By: Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026 O R D E R

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), relating to the Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi has erred in confirming the order passed by the ITO, Ward

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

depreciation.” (vi) Ground No.6 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making the addition of Rs.51,460/- on account of disallowance

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

depreciation.” (vi) Ground No.6 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making the addition of Rs.51,460/- on account of disallowance

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

depreciation.” (vi) Ground No.6 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making the addition of Rs.51,460/- on account of disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD vs. M/S. MANGALDEEP, VALSAD

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

section 263 of the Act could not and ought not to have been exercised. The Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. observed as under: “The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence