JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

reassessment proceedings, the ld DR submitted that after recording reasons for reopening of the case and after obtaining necessary approval from the Pr. C1T-2, Surat, the assessee`s case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2018 and served upon the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

reassessment proceedings, the ld DR submitted that after recording reasons for reopening of the case and after obtaining necessary approval from the Pr. C1T-2, Surat, the assessee`s case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2018 and served upon the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

147 of the Act and issuing\nnotice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on\nthe subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax Appeal\nADDL/JCIT(A)-7, Kolkata has erred in upholding the addition of\nRs.6,81,214/- on account of long term

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

u/s 147 of the Act, the submission and the various decisions of the ITA Nos.552 & 882/SRT/2024 (A.Y.11-12) Rambilash R Jajoo & Sunita Jajoo Courts including those relied upon by the ld Counsel for the assessee. Before we proceed to adjudicate the issue relating to validity of reassessment proceedings, we would like to examine the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, which

DHAVAL INDRAVADAN GANDHI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2, BARDOLI

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: 2012-2013 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Ito Ward-2, At & Post Areth, Tal Mandvi, Aayakar Bhavan, Janta Nagar Surat-394160. Vs. Society, Bardoli-394601. Pan No. Ajjpg 4246 J Appellant Respondent

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is incomplete and also bad on facts. ITA No. 601/SRT/2025 2 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi 1.0(b) Without prejudice to above ground that on facts and in 1.0(b) Without prejudice to above ground that on facts and in 1.0(b) Without prejudice to above ground that on facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT, ADAJAN, SURAT vs. CHANDUBHAI JADAVBHAI KORAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Ito, Vs. Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat, Ward – 1(3)(1), 5, Raghuvir Bungalow, City Light Surat Road, Bharthana, B.O. Umra, Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk7796L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.36/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Arising Out Of Ita No.720/Srt/2024) Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat, Vs. Ito, 5, Raghuvir Bungalow, City Light Road, Ward – 1(3)(1), Bharthana, B.O. Umra, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk7796L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

penny scrip stock JIIL were manipulated as the upward movement of share price was not at all justified by the economic fundamental of the company during the period of transactions. In support of the grounds of appeal, ld. CIT-DR requested to sustain the addition made by the AO and allow the revenue’s appeal

PISTABEN RAJMAL JAIN,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3), SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 635 & 703/Srt/2025 A. Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15

reassessment. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making an addition of Rs. 17,750/- as unrecorded payment of commission u/s. 69C without any evidences and base purely on guess work. 5. On the facts and circumstances as well as law on the subject

PISTABEN RAJMAL JAIN,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3), SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 635 & 703/Srt/2025 A. Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15

reassessment. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making an addition of Rs. 17,750/- as unrecorded payment of commission u/s. 69C without any evidences and base purely on guess work. 5. On the facts and circumstances as well as law on the subject

ITO, WARD-2(3)(2), SURAT, SURAT vs. KISHOR BHANUBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts of the case are the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the asst. year 2015-16 declaring taxable income of Rs.3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BHANUBHAI RANCHHODBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

penny stock scripts of JRI Industries Ltd. during the year amounting to Rs.4,77,27,036/- and as such treated the same as undisclosed and unaccounted in case of the ITA Nos.817/SRT/2024, 1002/SRT/2024 & 1003/SRT/2024 ITO vs. Shivlal Shamjibhai Ponkia & two Others Asst. Year: 2015-16 4 assessee. The assessment was completed under Section 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 19/05/2023

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT, ADAJAN, SURAT vs. SHIVLAL SHAMJIBHAI PONKIA, CITY LIGHT ROAD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

penny stock scripts of JRI Industries Ltd. during the year amounting to Rs.4,77,27,036/- and as such treated the same as undisclosed and unaccounted in case of the ITA Nos.817/SRT/2024, 1002/SRT/2024 & 1003/SRT/2024 ITO vs. Shivlal Shamjibhai Ponkia & two Others Asst. Year: 2015-16 4 assessee. The assessment was completed under Section 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 19/05/2023

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, HAZIRA RAOD, SURAT vs. SHARMISHTHABEN SHIVLAL PONKIA, UMRA, BHARTHANA B.O, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

penny stock scripts of JRI Industries Ltd. during the year amounting to Rs.4,77,27,036/- and as such treated the same as undisclosed and unaccounted in case of the ITA Nos.817/SRT/2024, 1002/SRT/2024 & 1003/SRT/2024 ITO vs. Shivlal Shamjibhai Ponkia & two Others Asst. Year: 2015-16 4 assessee. The assessment was completed under Section 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 19/05/2023

INCOME TAX OFFICER 331, MAJURA GATE SURAT vs. SHARDABEN GORDHANBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penny stock. The Assessing Officer had made additions based on the belief that the stock price movement was manipulated and not supported by financial fundamentals.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16, on or after April 1, 2021, were time-barred and invalid, based on pronouncements

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. DEEPESH VISHNU AGARWAL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

penny stock, leading to reopening of the case. A notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.06.2021, and subsequently, an order u/s 148A(d) was passed on 29.07.2022.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was issued beyond the permissible \"surviving period\" and without approval of the correct specified authority, rendering it void

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3)(1), SURAT vs. HITESH B PONKIA HUF, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

stock prices of the companies are manipulated to provide the\nbogus LTCG.\n(iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin allowing the claim ignoring the judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of McDowell Vs CTO wherein it was held that\n\"Colourable devises cannot

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. ILESH B PONKIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 901//SRT/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 ITO Vs. Ilesh B Ponika 2. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: 1. On the facts

REKHABEN JITENDRAKUMAR JAIN,AHURA NAGAR SOCIETY vs. PCIT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year : 2013-14 Rekhaben Jitendrakumar Jain, The Pr.Commissioner Of 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Vs Income Tax-1 Adajan. Surat. Pan : Adypj 6066 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca : Shri Ashish Pophara, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg

u/s. 263 may please be quashed or set aside as your honours deems it proper. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the ld.Pr.CIT noted from the assessment records that the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. The reassessment order was passed on 23.3.2022 by the AO, assessing the income of the assessee