GAURAVA MISHRA,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(8), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Gaurav Mishra, Vs. Ito, Present Address: - Ward -3 (2)(8), 80, Bayshore Road, Unit No.28, Surat (Costa Del Sol), Singapore – 46992 Permanent Address: 605, Spathik Shilla, Sundar Nagar Purani Basti, So Raipur – 492001, C.G., India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amkpm6042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Veekass Sharma, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

section 251(1) of the Act wherein it is stipulated that in cases where an order was passed as a ‘best judgment’ assessment u/s 144 of the Act, the CIT(A) is vested with the authority to set aside such assessment and remand the matter to AO for fresh evaluation. Accordingly, he exercised the powers conferred upon him u/s 251

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

Section 251(1)(a) of the Act effective from 01.10.2024. 6. It is therefore prayed that assessment framed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 may please be quashed and/or addition made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 7. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the 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

Section 251(1)(a) of the Act effective from 01.10.2024. 6. It is therefore prayed that assessment framed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 may please be quashed and/or addition made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 7. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal

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

u/s 250 r.w.s. 251 of the Act.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) disallowing the claim of exemption under section 12A Jayshri Gopallal Maharajshrini Surat Srusti Trust vs. ITO (E) Asst. Year –2022-23 - 4– of the Act on account of delay in filing of Form 10B, along with

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.9/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Arun Kumar Gupta Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Flat No.316, Srishti Suyraj Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat, 4Th Vs. Apartment, G.T. Road, Floor, Room No.410, Aayakar Ramadevi, Kanpur-208 007 Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afapg 2389 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 251(1) of the Act w.e.f. October 1, 2024 which empowers the CIT(A) to set aside an assessment order u/s 144 of the Act and refer the case back to the AO for fresh assessment. Accordingly, the order passed u/s 144 of the Act was set aside to AO for fresh assessment after providing adequate opportunity of being

VANMALIBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL L/H RANJANBEN DEEPAKBHAI PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 5, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.345/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Vanmalibhai Muljibhai Patel, Vs. Ito, L/H Of Ranjanben Deepakbhai Patel Ward - 5, 16, Shrinikunj Society, Ashabaug, Navsari Navsari - 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abjpp3114G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

147 of the Act by computing total income of Rs.25,61,553/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act was also separately initiated. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The appellant raised various grounds of appeal before the CIT(A), which are at pages

BALDEVRAJ JAMMURAM AHUJA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.178/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Baldevraj Jamnuram Ahuja, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(2)(1), Shop No.B/4073, Millenium Tex Surat. Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazpa7998J (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Rushi Parekh, Ar Revenue By : Ms Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/05/2022

u/s 147 of the Act, the submission and the various decisions of the Courts including those relied upon by the assessee. The assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment. We note that ld CIT(A) has dealt the issue of reopening in his appellate order, vide para no. 6.3.1 to para no.6.2.10 of his order. We have gone through

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 18.03.2015. 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press the appeal number in ITA No.165/SRT/2021 for AY.2009-10, therefore, we dismiss the said appeal, as not pressed. 3. First, we shall take assessee’s Cross

ARVINDKUMAR SONI,SURAT vs. ITO, WD-2(3)(7), SURAT, 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

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 18.03.2015. 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel informs the Bench that assessee does not wish to press the appeal number in ITA No.165/SRT/2021 for AY.2009-10, therefore, we dismiss the said appeal, as not pressed. 3. First, we shall take assessee’s Cross

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section

PRIME CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Prime Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs. Acit, Khatodra, Ring Road, Surat – Circle-1(1)(1), 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcp7117M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

reassessment order being passed by JAO instead of FAO, the order is required to be cancelled. (3) The SFT filers having made error in reporting the transactions under the wrong surrendered PAN should have not led to the addition in the hands of the appellant. ITA No.19/SRT/2025/AY 2013-14 Prime Co-op. Bank Ltd. (II) Reopening (1) The reopening

URMILABEN THAKORDAS SOPARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Urmilaben Thakordas Ito Sopariwala, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. New Civil 8/743, Hanuman Char Rasta, Vs. Hospital Majuragate, Gopipura, Surat-395001. Surat-395001. Pan No. Aprps 5313 J Appellant Respondent

147 of the Income 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on t ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on t ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 31.03.2018. The reassessment was completed on 14.12.2019 31.03.2018. The reassessment

MR. ROLHAN SANJAY PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(4), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rohan Sanjay Patel, I.T.O., “Sanket” Bungalow, Ward 1(3)(4), Vs. Near Bungalow No. 122 Of Sarjan Surat. Society, Opposite Science Centre, City Light Road, Surat-395007. Pan No. Ascpp 8025 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

reassessment order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is against the facts of the case, bad in law, illegal and needs to be quashed. 2. On the facts of the case and in law, both the A.O. and ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the facts of the case, materials adduced and evidences

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.51/SRT/2022 for assessment

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. M/S. DAGINA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., , SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.51/SRT/2022 for assessment