ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ARVIND SONI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.460/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Arvind Soni, Surat. Prop. Of M/S. Balajee Diamond, B-3, 701, Nakshara Platinum, Opp. Mathura Nagari, Palanpur Gam, Surat - 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bfmps0796F (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.165/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Physical Court Hearing) Arvindkumar Soni, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), B-3, 701, Nakshara Platinum, Surat. Opp. Mathura Nagari, Planpur Gam, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bfmps0796F (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection. No.14/Srt/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 460/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Arvind Soni, Surat. Prop. Of M/S. Balajee Diamond, B-3, 701, Nakshara Platinum, Opp. Mathura Nagari, Palanpur Gam, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bfmps0796F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala, Ca With Assessee By Shri Anand R. Chourasia, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2022 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

reassessment. It is revealed from the said additional material available on hand a reasonable belief is formed by the Assessing Authority that income of the petitioner has escaped assessment and therefore, once the reasonable belief is formulated by the Authority on the basis of cogent tangible material, the Authority is not expected to conclude at this stage the issue finally

M/S. BASE INDUSTRIES LTD.,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD -1, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 are illegal bad in law as the approval u/s 151 of the Act is invalid and bad in law. That the purported approval has been granted without any application of mind and therefore, the same is not in terms of the provisions of Section 151” ITA No.1581/AHD/2013 (AY 13-14)& M/s Base

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)

reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to ...........................is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him. (C) SECTION 271(1)(C) If the Assessing Officer............ is satisfied that any person- ………………. has concealed the particulars

MOHANBHAI RAGHAVBHAI BELADIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Mohanbhai Raghavbhai Beladiya, Vs. The Ito, 41-42, Vishnu Nagar Society – 1, Ward-3(2)(5), Ankur Char Rasta, A. K. Road, Surat Surat – 395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aospb9227J (Assessee) (Respondent)

152(SB). Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the issue raised in ‘additional ground' regarding non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, which goes to the ITA.359/SRT/2023/AY.2012-13 Mohanbhai Raghavbhai Beladiya root of the matter needs to be admitted. Hence, I hereby allow the assessee to raise

BALMUKUND M VAISHNAV,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

152(SB). Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the issue raised in ‘additional ground’ goes to the root of the matter which needs to be admitted. Hence, we hereby allow the assessee to raise additional ground of appeal. Since this ground raises question about the assumption of jurisdiction

MEDINNOVA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1241/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Medinnova Systems Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Previously Known Soma Tech. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat, Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) 301, Soham House, Current Jurisdiction Ward- Opp. St Xaviers School, Ghod 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Aaykar Dod Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Race Course, Circle, Vadodara-390 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakcs 5265 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 05.11.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated

VISHNUBHAI CHELABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PCIT, SURAT-1, SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Vishnubhai Chelabhai Patel, Pr.C.I.T.,Surat-1, F-19, Divya Jyoti Apartment, Surat. Vs. Samul Dairy Road, Alkapuri, Surat-395008 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adipp 4007 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

152 TAXMAN 242 (Raj). 6. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of ld PCIT. The ld CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the assessment order is cryptic and does not disclosed the investigation carried out by the AO. There was no application of mind on the facts

NA vs. ARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN,NAVSARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.272/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, V The Income Tax Officer, Agiary Street, Malesar, Navsari S Exemption Ward, Surat. Taluka, Navsari – 396 445. . [Pan: Aaatn 6124 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri H.R.Vepari – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Vaishav – Cit - Dr

Reassessment proceedings u/s.148 started on Assessments concluded on Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman Vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Surat /ITA No.272/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Page 5 of 14 The Tribunal held that as long as objects of the society were charitable in nature in years earlier to year in which registration u/s.12A was granted and no adverse findings were given with

JAYVADAN RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

152/-. The assessment order is not just and proper as the assessee had made the payments and paid the GST with interest and penalty. The ld. A.R. filed following arguments in the form of written submissions:- “5. As stated above, assessee in his statement before the GST authority stated that he received the delivery of the goods but the broker