NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowance was clearly mentioned in the communication of proposed adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, wherein the assessee has neither mentioned about filing application for condonation nor about condonation of delay

NAVBHARAT CHERITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARUCH

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi Jhagadia, Bharuch, Ward-1, Vs. Gujarat, Pin-393115 Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowed such claim for want of Form 10B, which was not furnished alongwith return of income or before filing return of income. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of CPC/Assessing officer by holding that the assessee has not furnished any application if any for seeking condonation of delay

SHREE BILIMORA VIBHAG ANAVIL MANDAL NUTAN PARK, SHANTI NIKETAN SOCIETY MORORJI DESAI MARG BILIMORA NA vs. ARI,NAVSARIVS.CIT(EXEMPTION), SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condone on the ground that intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 was received by the assessee on 16.02.2016 i.e on the same day of the intimation order passed by the CPC banglore so filling appeal in delay of by the appellant has not acted with reasonable diligence and prudence which is not correct

SHREE BILIMORA VIBHAG ANAVIL MANDAL NUTAN PARK, SHANTI NIKETAN SOCIETY, MORARJI DESAI MARG BILIMORA NA vs. ARI,NAVSARIVS.CIT(EXEMPTION), SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

condone on the ground that intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15 was received by the assessee on 16.02.2016 i.e on the same day of the intimation order passed by the CPC banglore so filling appeal in delay of by the appellant has not acted with reasonable diligence and prudence which is not correct

MUKHTAR RAMZAN SHAIKH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

disallowed the deduction u/s 80C of the Act for Rs.27,136/-.” 4. Both these appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, are barred by limitation by 489 days each. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay

MUKHTAR RAMZAN SHAIKH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.628 & 629/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 303, Imran Mension, Opp. Vs. Ward-6, Vapi, Income Tax Office, Suman Auto, Godal Nagar, Room No.808, Fortune Saquare- Vapi-396191 Ii, Daman Road, Chala Vapi- 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awlps 0991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

disallowed the deduction u/s 80C of the Act for Rs.27,136/-.” 4. Both these appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, are barred by limitation by 489 days each. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay

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

disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which is void ab 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

disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which is void ab 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

disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which is void ab 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

disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which is void ab 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

disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which is void ab initio hence rejection of deduction is bad in law. 4. The Learned CIT(A)/ NFAC has erred in rejecting the delay condone

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

disallowing expense of Rs. 9,56,569/-. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) observed that there an inordinate delay of 3018 days i.e. more than eight years’ delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the assessee was not aware about the demand as no regular assessment was done for the impugned

SACHIN NOTIFIED AREA,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , SURAT - 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.343/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Sachin Notified Area, Vs. The Pcit, Surat-1 Plot No.5719, Unnati Building, Sachin Gidc, Sachin, Surat-394230. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaals0146H Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Appellant By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is deemed Municipality working in the name and style as ‘Sachin Notified Area’. The assessee had filed its return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18 on 24/03/2018, declaring total income NIL, after claiming deduction of Rs.13

RUNI IMPEX,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

disallowance of Rs.1,83,073/-, u/s.40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, though the same was contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend the aforesaid Grounds of Appeal, if called for, before the disposal of the appeal.” We shall first start with

RUNI IMPEX,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

disallowance of Rs.1,83,073/-, u/s.40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, though the same was contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend the aforesaid Grounds of Appeal, if called for, before the disposal of the appeal.” We shall first start with

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

MAHAVIR EDUCATION TRUST,SURAT vs. ADDITIONAL CIT CPC/ JURISDICTIONAL A.O. EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, BENGALURU/SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mahavir Educational Trust, Addl.C.I.T., 6/1020, Opp. Jay Jalaram Khaman, C.P.C. Bangalore, Vs. Balaji Road, Nani Chhipwad, Gopipura, Surat-395001. (Gujarat) Jurisdictional A.O. Pan No. Aaatn 4014 C Exemption Ward, Surat. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowing the amount claimed as application of income and accumulation of income although audit report in Form 10B was uploaded on portal and the delay in filing of audit report was condoned

VIJAYBHAI BOOKBINDER,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD- 3(2)(10), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of the\nappeal is allowed and ground No

delay in filing appeal and disallowed the condonation of\ndelay without accepting the fact as explained by assessee.\n3. The appellant