MANISH BHOGILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.687/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manish Bhogilal Shah The Income Tax Officer-3 बनाम/ 6/B, Crown Mansion Navsari – 396 445 V/S. Ground Floor Forjeet Street, Cross Lane, Mumbai – 400 026 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqps 6699 F (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08 /12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27 /02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Manish Bhogilal Shah Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2

272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Ground 9. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds OR to amend OR alter the existing grounds of appeal on OR before the date of hearing. 4. Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in passing exparty order

SHREE SAI ALANG HOUSE,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.906/Srt/2024 (Ay 2022-23) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sai Alang House Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), 13-15, Khodal Chhaya Society, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम Surat Kamrej Road, Opp. Majura Gate, Vs Shyamdham Mandir, Surat-395 001 Surat-394 185 [Pan : Abefs 8896 D] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 22.03.2024. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A(1) If any person.......................................... he shall pay, by way of penalty………… 24.2 Therefore, if 'may' can be substituted with shall, then sections 133Aand 133(6) should be invoked in every case. That will lead to an absurd interpretation. The legislature did not intend to use the words' May' and 'Shall' interchangeably. IT(SS)A.150-154/AHD/2015 & ITA.1245/AHD/2015 Assessment Years

MEGHNA ORGANIC,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-5, VAPI

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in re-opening the assessment Meghna Organic Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issuing notice