NAZAR IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(3), SURAT (CURRENT JURISDICTION), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Nazar Impex Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395 003 Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccn3603R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’), Dated 26.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeals Are As Under: “1. Ground 6. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of Income Tax, Act 1961 Without Pointing Out Any Defect In Books Of Account & Even The Return Income On The Basis Of Books Of Account Were Also Not Disputed.

section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the issue which is subject matter of appeal cannot be considered again in reassessment proceeding. 7. Ground 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI ARVINDBHAI LALLUBHAI LAKHANKIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.962/Ahd/2016; "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Arvindbhai Lallubhai V Asst. Commissioner Of Lakhankiya, B-78, Hans Society, S Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aadpl 3819 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

section 143(3). The reopening is not valid on the basis of report of the valuer / DVO. The assessee in his objection also relied on the following decisions  Bomaby High Court in CIT Vs TulsidassKalichand (122 ITR 458 Bom),  Rajasthan High Court in SardarKehar Singh Vs CIT (195 ITR 769 Raj),  Calcutta High Court in Reliance Jute Industries

FARHA S. KADRI,BILIMORA vs. ITO, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, the original ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Farha S Kadri, I.T.O. 762, Bazar Street, Bunder Road, Ward-2, Vs. Bilimora (Gujarat)-396321 Navsari. Pan No. Annpk 8150 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

195/- as on 01/11/2008. The bank balance was accumulated from foreign gift received from her son. The assessee further withdrawn Rs. 21,300/- prior to cash deposit of Rs. 2,78,585/-. The assessee also withdrawn Rs. 3,44,300/- on 30/06/2009 to support cash deposit of Rs. 82,000/- on 15/06/2009. The assessee received cash gift

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