RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

273 ITR 1 has dealt with this very issue. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no question of trying to read any conflict in the two judgments of this court " 18. We have also considered the decision

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

273 ITR 1 has dealt with this very issue. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no question of trying to read any conflict in the two judgments of this court " 18. We have also considered the decision

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

273 ITR 1 has dealt with this very issue. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no question of trying to read any conflict in the two judgments of this court " 18. We have also considered the decision

AALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.94/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Plot No.168, Udhyog Nagar Road, Udhna, Surat -394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8469M (Assessee) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars, are also being initiated in assessee’s case separately.” 14. It is abundantly clear from the above assessment order passed by the assessing officer under 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Act, that in response to question asked by the assessing officer during the assessment stage, the assessee submitted details and documents

NILAM ASHWINBHAI INAMDAR,KHATODRA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.78/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Smt. Nilam Ashwinbhai Inamdar Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), 201-202, Keshari Nandan Square, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Vs. B/H. Civil Hospital, Khatodara, 395001 Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpi 4123 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’], In Appeal No. Cas/2/342/2016-17 Dated 04.09.2017, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 30.11.2016. 2.At The Very Outset, Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Informs The Bench That Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 878 Days. The Ld Counsel Stated That Assessee Has Explained The Delay In Her Petition For Condonation Of Delay. The Assessee`S Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Is Reproduced Below:

273 ITR 229. 5. In light of above submissions & judicial pronouncements, it is prayed that delay if any may kindly be condoned & appeal may please be admitted in the interest of natural justice, equity & fair play.” 3.Therefore, ld Counsel pleads that there is no delay in filing the appeal considering the date on which the order was actually received

THE DY,CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, SURAT vs. M/S. NAKODA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed

271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act levied by the AO, while the assessee had committed a default by claiming wrong deduction of unabsorbed loss and unabsorbed depreciation from the profit calculated u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing