WIND FINANCIAL SERVICES LLP,DAMAN & DIU vs. PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

reassessed without any modification. The company had filed all the details before the AO during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) and the subsequent proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 and 147 of the Act. The FAO-NaFAC completed after considering the submission made by the ITA Nos.501 & 502/SRT/2024/AYs.2014-15 & 2015-16 Wind Financial Services LLP company. The case

NYA INTERNATIONAL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.57/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Nya International, Vs. The Pcit-1, Unit No.360, Plot No.239, Sez, Gidc Surat. Sachin, Suarat – 394230. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, this issue, under consideration has not merged with order of ld CIT(A), hence arguments advanced by ld Counsel is hereby rejected. 25. However, we note that assessing officer has examined these two issues raised in reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act viz: (i) The credit entry in ING Vysya

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

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

reassessment proceedings, if the twin\nconditions prescribed under Section 147 of the Act are satisfied.\n23. In fact, in three recent judgments; the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld\nthe reopening on similar facts. The case is squarely covered against the assessee by\nthese judgments which are:\n•\nYogendrakumar Gupta vs. ITO 366 ITR 186 (Guj)\n•\nPeass Industrial

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

SHRI CHAMPAKBHAI D. PATEL,BARDOLI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.15/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) M/S. Champakbhai D. Patel, Vs. The Cit(It & Tp), Mota Sardar Chowk, Bardoli, Ahmedabad Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Atlpp0997K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The grievances raised by the assessee are interconnected and mix, which will be taken together, are as follows: “I. Validity of order u/s 263: (1) The Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (IT & TP), has grossly erred

VISHNUBHAI CHELABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PCIT, SURAT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Vishnubhai Chelabhai Patel, Pr.C.I.T.,Surat-1, F-19, Divya Jyoti Apartment, Surat. Vs. Samul Dairy Road, Alkapuri, Surat-395008 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adipp 4007 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961 setting aside the order of assessing officer and directing assessing officer to pass fresh assessment order may please be quashed. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that

HARSHIT GEMS LTD,SURAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 21/06/2021 is non-est and bad-in-law, since had been passed beyond the limitation period specified u/s 153(2) as the notice u/s 148 had been served on 29/03/2019 and due date to pass the re-assessment order had expired on 31/12/2019; Other Grounds 2.0 On fact and circumstances

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S. HARSHIT GEMS LTD., , SURAT

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 21/06/2021 is non-est and bad-in-law, since had been passed beyond the limitation period specified u/s 153(2) as the notice u/s 148 had been served on 29/03/2019 and due date to pass the re-assessment order had expired on 31/12/2019; Other Grounds 2.0 On fact and circumstances

HARSHIT GEMS LTD,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 21/06/2021 is non-est and bad-in-law, since had been passed beyond the limitation period specified u/s 153(2) as the notice u/s 148 had been served on 29/03/2019 and due date to pass the re-assessment order had expired on 31/12/2019; Other Grounds 2.0 On fact and circumstances

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S. HARSHIT GEMS LTD., , SURAT

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 21/06/2021 is non-est and bad-in-law, since had been passed beyond the limitation period specified u/s 153(2) as the notice u/s 148 had been served on 29/03/2019 and due date to pass the re-assessment order had expired on 31/12/2019; Other Grounds 2.0 On fact and circumstances

AJAY KALISHCHANDRA BOHRA,DAMAN vs. PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 549/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Ajay Kalishchandra Bohra Principal Commissioner Of Income- 1, Plot No.22B, Daman Industrial Tax, Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak बनाम Estate, Somnath Road, Dabhel, Arcade, Shantinagar, Tithal Road, Vs Daman-396 215 Valsad-396 001 [Pan : Ackpb 2567 R] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

147 r.w.s 144B as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and passing order u/s 263, directing to pass fresh assessment order in the case. 2.Prayer Ajay K Bohra 2.1 The order u/s 263 passed by the PCIT may be kindly set aside. 2.2 Personal hearing may be granted. 2.3 Any other relief that your honours may deem

MANISH KISHORBHAI CHOPDA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 288/Srt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Kishorbhai Chopda Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(2)(5), B 904, Vrajratna Residency, Nr. Room No. 619, Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Vrajchowk, Sarthana Jakatnaka, Majura Gate, Surat – 395001 Varachha, Surat – 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp 4108 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section under the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby rendering the addition bad in law. The learned CIT(A) further erred in sustaining such an addition without rectifying this legal defect 5. On the facts and in law, the learned Assessing Officer passed the reassessment order u/s 144 without proper application of mind by mechanically adding total bank credits, including amounts

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