ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

234B(3) of the Act, interest is chargeable on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of reassessment or recompilation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

234B(3) of the Act, interest is chargeable on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of reassessment or recompilation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding

M/S. SHANGRILA LATEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Shangrila Latex Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Circle-4, C/O. B.M. Parekh & Co., 203, 2Nd Surat. Floor, Navjivan Society, Bldg. No. 03, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaics1479E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjay S. Kapadia, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2022 28/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 31.03.2014. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,63,65,889/- on account

JAYENDRASINH BHIKHUBHAI SOLANKI,SILVASSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jidicial Member & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1244/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Processing Hearing) Jayendrasinh Bhikhubhai Solanki बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, 37/3, Trimurti Bhavan, High School Vs. Income Tax Office, Vee Bee Mall, Faliya, Naroli, Silvassa-396 230 Near Civil Court, Tokarkhada, Silvassa -396 230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Angps 4011 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

reassessment proceeding under section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that no other addition is permissible, if no addition made on basis of reasons recorded for reopening. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred

KETAN NATVARLAL SHAH,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2013-14

reassessment order dated 17.05.2022 the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority which was decided by Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: 1. On the facts

KANCHAN DEVI AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Pruseth

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, which are invalid and bad in law ab initio. Appellant prays for quashing the same. 2. Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition

KANCHAN DEVI AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Pruseth

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, which are invalid and bad in law ab initio. Appellant prays for quashing the same. 2. Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition

LEXUS SOFTMAC,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) both dated 20.05.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s

LEXUS SOFTMAC,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) both dated 20.05.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s

DESIGNER EXIM PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) M/S Designer Exim Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., D-1203, Panchsheel Heights, Opp.- Ward 1(1)(2), Vs. Pizza Hut, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali Surat. West, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400067 Pan No. Aabcd 4298 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 148 of the Act. (c) The learned Assessing Officer failed to obtain sanction of the prescribed authority before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. (d) The initiation of proceeding under section 147 of the Act and issuance of notice under section 148 is without jurisdiction, bad in law and contrary to the provisions

GANI MOHAMMAD POPAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3, VAPI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Popat Yasin Abdulganibhai, I.T.O., Son & L/H Of Late Gani Mohammad Ward-3, Vs. Popat, Vapi. Bombay Market, Zanda Chowk, Near S.T. Bus Depot, Vapi. Pan No. Akvpp 0747 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

234B of the Act. 12. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the Id. AO in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. Initially