RUPAL DEVANG NAIK ,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-4, NAVSARI

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

reassessment. Since, assessee's share in the property is only\n12.5% and after allowing deduction of cost of acquisition, the income

M/S. MAC INDUSTRIES,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1036/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S. Mac Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2407/2, Gidc, Sarigam, Ward-6, Vapi. Ta- Umbergaon, Valsad-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2011M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora - Ar Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the question of remuneration paid by the firm to the partners. He was of the opinion that the ceiling of such remuneration for the purpose of claiming deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL PUKHRAJ JAIN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.89/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Anil Pukhraj Jain, Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206-2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent)/ "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q ""या"ेप सं Cross Objection No.10/Srt/2021 (A/O Ita No.89/Srt/2017) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) Anil Pukhraj Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206- 2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Vs. Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. Appellant/Co-Objector (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2023

deduction, allowance or relief in the return; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment

RANG AVDHUT MANDIR TRUST,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BARDOLI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rang Avdhut Mandir Trust, I.T.O., 208, Sarvoday Nagar Society, Bardoli, Ward-1, Vs. Surat. Bardoli. Pan No. Aaaar 3731 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

deduction under Section 80J of the Act. The ld. AR submits that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Sakal Relief Fund (2017) 81 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay) also held that even if Form 10 was filed during reassessment

VAPI MARCHANT SAVING AND CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Vapi Merchant Saving & Credit Ito Ward-9, Co-Op Society Ltd., Income Tax Office, Nr. Vaishali Office No. 130, First Floor, Varun Vs. Char Rasta, Nh-8, Gidc, Complex, Opp. Reliance Super Vapi-396191. Market Gidc, Vapi-396195. Pan No. Aaaav 3925 E Appellant Respondent

deduction of ₹14,61,780/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The bifurcations of interest income reported by the assessee in The bifurcations of interest income reported by the assessee in The bifurcations of interest income reported by the assessee in the return of income is reproduced as under: the return

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ACIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment under section 147 could not be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year viz. after 31 March 2011 unless there has been any failure on part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment under section 147 could not be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year viz. after 31 March 2011 unless there has been any failure on part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE DY.CIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment under section 147 could not be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year viz. after 31 March 2011 unless there has been any failure on part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment under section 147 could not be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year viz. after 31 March 2011 unless there has been any failure on part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment under section 147 could not be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year viz. after 31 March 2011 unless there has been any failure on part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ADDL.CIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment under section 147 could not be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year viz. after 31 March 2011 unless there has been any failure on part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

GORDHANBHAI L MORADIA,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(3)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.375/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम/ Gordhanbhai L Moradia The Ito V/S. 401, Krishna Vatika Society Ward-1(3)(2) City Light Road Surat – 395 001 Surat – 395 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ablpm 2077 K (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 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 10/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Merely For A Delay Of 2 Days, That Too Without Affording A Single Opportunity Of Requesting For Condonation Of Delay. Gordhanbhai I. Moradia Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

reassessment proceedings as required u/s. 147 of the Act. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed against stand of the AO in making addition of Rs. 8,35,236 as interest on partner's capital with the firm during the year under consideration

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, ADAJAN vs. ABHISHEK NAVNIT DOSHI , MAHIDHARPURA

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Ito, Abhishek Navnit Doshi, 405, Income Tax Office, Anavil 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Business Centre, Hazira Road, Vs. Jin Shanti Bldg. Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395003. Surat-395009. Pan No. Afhpd 0064 M Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings, the assessee furnished audit reports, bank statements, export invoices, purchase bills, bank statements, export invoices, purchase bills, bank statements, export invoices, purchase bills, sales registers, and ledger accounts, asserting that all payments sales registers, and ledger accounts, asserting that all payments sales registers, and ledger accounts, asserting that all payments had been effected through recognised banking channels

JIGNESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel, Ito Ward-2(3)(2), 84, Angreji Faliyu, Opp. Post Income Tax Office, Majura Gate, Office, Amroli, Surat-394107. Vs. Surat-395001. Pan No. Bczpp 8713 R Appellant Respondent

deduction of cost of acquisition or indexed cost of acquisition. acquisition. 5. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by It is therefore prayed that above addition made by It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner

ALKESHKUMAR MAGANBHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO),WARD 1(1) BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Alkeshkumar Maganbhai Patel, Ito Ward 1(1), 30 Atmiya Nagar, Near Kgm Income Tax Office, Bharuch, Vidyalay Zadeshw Zadeshwar, Vs. Income-Tax Office, Hari Kunj, Bharuch-392011. Station Road, Bharuch-356069. Pan No. Bklpp 8435 L Appellant Respondent

deduction under section 80TTA of Rs. Rs. 10,000/ 10,000/- as as undisclosed undisclosed interest interest income income under under the the Income Tax Act, Act, 1961. 2. Despite notifying for hearing Despite notifying for hearing, neither anyone attended nor neither anyone attended nor any application for adjournmen any application for adjournment was filed before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PAMECHA, AJMER

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act, observing as follows: “7. DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Ground regarding validity of re-opening and assessment there-on; 7.1.1 This ground of appeal pertains to validity of re - opening of the case u/s 147 of the Act and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. I have perused

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act, observing as follows: “7. DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Ground regarding validity of re-opening and assessment there-on; 7.1.1 This ground of appeal pertains to validity of re - opening of the case u/s 147 of the Act and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. I have perused

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act, observing as follows: “7. DISCUSSION AND DECISION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Ground regarding validity of re-opening and assessment there-on; 7.1.1 This ground of appeal pertains to validity of re - opening of the case u/s 147 of the Act and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. I have perused