SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

68,138/- (PB- Anx-C). Further, afresh re-assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 254 was passed on 16.10.2006(PB-Anx-F) in pursuance of direction of tribunal order dated 20.05.2005 in I.T.A.No. 1436,1437, 1736, 1737/ Ahd/ 2003, and second fresh assessment order passed on 26.12.2011 under section 143 (3) read with section

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

68,138/- (PB- Anx-C). Further, afresh re-assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 254 was passed on 16.10.2006(PB-Anx-F) in pursuance of direction of tribunal order dated 20.05.2005 in I.T.A.No. 1436,1437, 1736, 1737/ Ahd/ 2003, and second fresh assessment order passed on 26.12.2011 under section 143 (3) read with section

SHRI HARGOVIND ISHWARBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

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

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "68", "139(1)", "132", "142(1)", "253(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the appeal should be admitted

BALDEVBHAI VITHHAKBHAI PATEL,PARDI vs. ITO, WARD 1, VAPI

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

sections": [ "68", "69A", "250", "253(3)", "148", "142(1)", "143(2)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) order upholding additions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 15.09.2023. However, the assessee filed the appeal on 29.06.2024. Therefore, there is a delay of 63 days

CHIMANBHAI A. KANTESARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Income Tax Officer A-54, Trikam Nagar Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Aaykar Vs Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, 395006 Surat-395001 Pan : Abepp 7380 D Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) while passing the assessment order. The show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act was served upon the assessee. The Assessing 2 Sh.Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Officer recorded that neither the assessee appeared nor filed any written explanation. The Assessing Officer held

MAHENDRA BHIKHUBHAI BHAGAT,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WD.1(3)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mahendra Bhikhubhai Bhagat, Vs The Income Tax Officer, A-15, Professors Quarters, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat. New Civil Hospital Campus, Majura Gate, Surat-395001. Pan : Abhpb2958A Appellant Respondednt

253 of Income-tax Act, filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short ‘NFAC’)/CIT(A)”, dated 20/09/2021 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, which in turn arises against assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

JASHUBHAI MANJIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bijayananda Pruseth & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.845/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jashubhai Manjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 84, Sainath Society, At-Maandavi Ward - 1, Ta-Mandavi, Surat-394160 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amppp2266C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Dalzin Madan, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025

section 253 of the Act. The ld. AR requested that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merit in the interest of justice. He submitted that the delay is not inordinate and it was not deliberate and intentional. Considering the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant, we condone the delay

SHHLOK TRITON ASSOCIATES ,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.638/Srt/2024 Assessment Year:(2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shhlok Triton Associates, Vs. Pcit – 1, F.P. No. 388, Paikee Udhna Surat Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclfs6819A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an application giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted that the delay in filing appeal was due to unavoidable medical exigency. The assessee was ITA No.638/SRT/2024/AY 2014-15 Shhlok Triton Associates undergoing treatment for chest pain and heart condition and was admitted

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

68,030/-, which is below the monetary limit prescribed by Central Board of Direct Tax (in short ‘the CBDT’) in Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that said appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed on account of low tax effect. 3. Learned DR for the Revenue has fairly agreed that appeal filed by the Revenue

SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA PROP. OF BRIGHT DIAMONDS,SURATY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

68,030/-, which is below the monetary limit prescribed by Central Board of Direct Tax (in short ‘the CBDT’) in Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that said appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed on account of low tax effect. 3. Learned DR for the Revenue has fairly agreed that appeal filed by the Revenue

PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA PROP. OF DEEKSHA TRADING ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), , SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

68,030/-, which is below the monetary limit prescribed by Central Board of Direct Tax (in short ‘the CBDT’) in Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that said appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed on account of low tax effect. 3. Learned DR for the Revenue has fairly agreed that appeal filed by the Revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

68,030/-, which is below the monetary limit prescribed by Central Board of Direct Tax (in short ‘the CBDT’) in Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that said appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed on account of low tax effect. 3. Learned DR for the Revenue has fairly agreed that appeal filed by the Revenue

ITO, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

68,030/-, which is below the monetary limit prescribed by Central Board of Direct Tax (in short ‘the CBDT’) in Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that said appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed on account of low tax effect. 3. Learned DR for the Revenue has fairly agreed that appeal filed by the Revenue

VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR PROP. OF ADITI EXPORTS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

68,030/-, which is below the monetary limit prescribed by Central Board of Direct Tax (in short ‘the CBDT’) in Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that said appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed on account of low tax effect. 3. Learned DR for the Revenue has fairly agreed that appeal filed by the Revenue

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

68,030/-, which is below the monetary limit prescribed by Central Board of Direct Tax (in short ‘the CBDT’) in Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that said appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed on account of low tax effect. 3. Learned DR for the Revenue has fairly agreed that appeal filed by the Revenue

MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI PROP. SHRUSHTI ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, - 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

68,030/-, which is below the monetary limit prescribed by Central Board of Direct Tax (in short ‘the CBDT’) in Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that said appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed on account of low tax effect. 3. Learned DR for the Revenue has fairly agreed that appeal filed by the Revenue

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

3)] i.e., 6,11,87,455 * 100/10,57,64,793 40. On the basis of aforesaid working, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that on the business of selling of building, assessee would earn the rate of around 58% worth presumptive income directed to be accepted by Income Tax Act itself as per provisions of section 44AD