ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI vs. SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDLI LTD, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

246 Vs PAN : AAAAS 4731M The Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Circle-2(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Shree Mahuva Pradesh Income Tax Officer Sahakari Khand Udyog Vs Ward-1, Bardoli, 2nd Floor, Mandi Ltdd., At & PO BSNL Building, Opp. Jalaram Sugar Factory, Bamaniya, Temple, Station Road, Tal-Mahuva, Dist. Surat- Bardoli-394601 395246 appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

246 Vs PAN : AAAAS 4731M The Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Circle-2(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Shree Mahuva Pradesh Income Tax Officer Sahakari Khand Udyog Vs Ward-1, Bardoli, 2nd Floor, Mandi Ltdd., At & PO BSNL Building, Opp. Jalaram Sugar Factory, Bamaniya, Temple, Station Road, Tal-Mahuva, Dist. Surat- Bardoli-394601 395246 appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

246 Vs PAN : AAAAS 4731M The Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Circle-2(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Shree Mahuva Pradesh Income Tax Officer Sahakari Khand Udyog Vs Ward-1, Bardoli, 2nd Floor, Mandi Ltdd., At & PO BSNL Building, Opp. Jalaram Sugar Factory, Bamaniya, Temple, Station Road, Tal-Mahuva, Dist. Surat- Bardoli-394601 395246 appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

246 Vs PAN : AAAAS 4731M The Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Circle-2(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Shree Mahuva Pradesh Income Tax Officer Sahakari Khand Udyog Vs Ward-1, Bardoli, 2nd Floor, Mandi Ltdd., At & PO BSNL Building, Opp. Jalaram Sugar Factory, Bamaniya, Temple, Station Road, Tal-Mahuva, Dist. Surat- Bardoli-394601 395246 appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI vs. SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDLI LTD, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

246 Vs PAN : AAAAS 4731M The Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Circle-2(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Shree Mahuva Pradesh Income Tax Officer Sahakari Khand Udyog Vs Ward-1, Bardoli, 2nd Floor, Mandi Ltdd., At & PO BSNL Building, Opp. Jalaram Sugar Factory, Bamaniya, Temple, Station Road, Tal-Mahuva, Dist. Surat- Bardoli-394601 395246 appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI vs. SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDLI LTD, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

246 Vs PAN : AAAAS 4731M The Deputy Commissioner of income Tax, Circle-2(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Shree Mahuva Pradesh Income Tax Officer Sahakari Khand Udyog Vs Ward-1, Bardoli, 2nd Floor, Mandi Ltdd., At & PO BSNL Building, Opp. Jalaram Sugar Factory, Bamaniya, Temple, Station Road, Tal-Mahuva, Dist. Surat- Bardoli-394601 395246 appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

M/S. JAY KESAR BHAVANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2102 To 2104/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2010-11 To 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. Jay Kesar Bhavani Developers Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Surat. A-48, Kesar Kunj, Shri Bhulabhai Desai Marg, Laxmikant Ashram Road, Katargam, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj6278P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Seth, Ca Respondent By Shri J. K. Chandani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2022 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) of the Act, amounting to Rs.44,85,887/-. This is a common ground in all three appeals of the assessee (that is, in ITA Nos.2102 to 2104/Ahd/2016), which is related to rejection of assessee’s claim under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, we adjudicate said common ground

M/S. JAY KESAR BHAVANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2102 To 2104/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2010-11 To 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. Jay Kesar Bhavani Developers Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Surat. A-48, Kesar Kunj, Shri Bhulabhai Desai Marg, Laxmikant Ashram Road, Katargam, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj6278P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Seth, Ca Respondent By Shri J. K. Chandani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2022 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) of the Act, amounting to Rs.44,85,887/-. This is a common ground in all three appeals of the assessee (that is, in ITA Nos.2102 to 2104/Ahd/2016), which is related to rejection of assessee’s claim under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, we adjudicate said common ground

M/S. JAY KESAR BHAVANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2102 To 2104/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2010-11 To 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. Jay Kesar Bhavani Developers Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Surat. A-48, Kesar Kunj, Shri Bhulabhai Desai Marg, Laxmikant Ashram Road, Katargam, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj6278P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Seth, Ca Respondent By Shri J. K. Chandani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2022 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) of the Act, amounting to Rs.44,85,887/-. This is a common ground in all three appeals of the assessee (that is, in ITA Nos.2102 to 2104/Ahd/2016), which is related to rejection of assessee’s claim under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, we adjudicate said common ground

RAJ ABHISHEK CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

disallowance in respect of deduction claimed u/s 80-IB of the Act. Thus, Ld. PCIT noted that Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2019 without making inquiries which should have been made and without application of mind. This make the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR POPATBHAI GABANI,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5)., SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

disallowance of set off of loss shares F & O against undisclosed income declared by DDIT, Investigation, Surat. From the records, we noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) on the solidary ground that the same was not within limitations and assessee had no ‘sufficient cause’ for filing the appeal in time. In this respect

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR POPATBHAI GABANI,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5)., SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

disallowance of set off of loss shares F & O against undisclosed income declared by DDIT, Investigation, Surat. From the records, we noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) on the solidary ground that the same was not within limitations and assessee had no ‘sufficient cause’ for filing the appeal in time. In this respect

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR POPATBHAI GABANI,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5)., SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

disallowance of set off of loss shares F & O against undisclosed income declared by DDIT, Investigation, Surat. From the records, we noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) on the solidary ground that the same was not within limitations and assessee had no ‘sufficient cause’ for filing the appeal in time. In this respect

SUDHIR BHUPENDRA DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT. TAX), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.92/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sudhir Bhupendra Desai Income Tax Officer, (Int. Tax), 106, ‘Shriyam’, Nehru Nagar, Room No.107, 1St Floor, Vs Ichhanath, Svr College, S.O., Income-Tax Office, Surat Surat-395007 Anavil Business Centre, Pan No: Axdpd 7887 Q Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

246 ITR 218 (SC), wherein it was held that before penalty can be imposed, the entirety of circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that 4 Sudhir B Desai the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. Further, assessee also relied on the decision