SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 148 without bringing out the failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts as required u/s 147 therefore, the notice issued pursuant to the same is bad in law." 7.4.1 It is the contention of the assessee that the AO Issued the notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of change

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. SATYAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, SILVASA

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

166 & 167/Srt /2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical hearing) I.T.O., Satyam Educational Trust, Silvassa, Exemption Ward, Plot No. 52/2, Near Prabhat School, Vs. Surat. Chandandevi Road, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Gujarat-396230. PAN No. AABTS 9661 C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Assessee represented by Shri Hardik Kakadiya, C.A. Date of institution

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. SATYAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, SILVASA

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

166 & 167/Srt /2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical hearing) I.T.O., Satyam Educational Trust, Silvassa, Exemption Ward, Plot No. 52/2, Near Prabhat School, Vs. Surat. Chandandevi Road, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Gujarat-396230. PAN No. AABTS 9661 C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Assessee represented by Shri Hardik Kakadiya, C.A. Date of institution

JAYSHRI GOPALLAL MAHARAJSHRINI SURAT SRUSTI TRUST,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

166 taxmann.com 732 (Gujarat)[13-08-2024], the High Court held that where assessee-trust for past many years had substantially satisfied conditions for claiming exemption under section 11 and had also explained reason for delay in filing Form No. 10B due to illness of Accountant who was on leave for long time, matter was to be remanded to respondent

ISCON COPPER PRIVATE LIMITTED,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

166 TAXMANN.COM 61 (DELHI) (HC OF DELHI) 6. ALIT GARG HUF VS. THE ACIT, CC-1, VAPI, ITA 392/SRT/2024 (ITAT, SURAT) 7. GLASSEYE TRADERS PVT.LTD. VS. WD-1(1)(1), KOLKATA, ΙΤΑ ΝΟ.1485/KOL/2024 (ITAT, KOLKATA) 4. After having gone through the facts of the present case, we noticed that it is an undisputed fact that no addition was made

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

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

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Since the issues involved in all the three appeals are identical and the grounds are verbatim the same except variation in figures, they were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. 3. ITA No. 953/SRT/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 is treated

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

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

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Since the issues involved in all the three appeals are identical and the grounds are verbatim the same except variation in figures, they were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. 3. ITA No. 953/SRT/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 is treated

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

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

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Since the issues involved in all the three appeals are identical and the grounds are verbatim the same except variation in figures, they were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. 3. ITA No. 953/SRT/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 is treated