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

5) of 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

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

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO WARD-1, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.18,66,667/- on account of long-term capital gain on sale of land without considering that the said land was not sold by the assessee but was sold by the partnership firm ‘Bhagyoday

BALVANT NANDLAL TALAVIYA,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.530 & 531/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Balvant Nandlal Talaviya, Vs. The Ito, B-2/45, Sundaram Park Society, Hansot Ward – 1, Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch - 393001 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aedpt4075K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.18,66,667/- on account of long-term capital gain on sale of land without considering that the said land was not sold by the assessee but was sold by the partnership firm ‘Bhagyoday

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

RADHA MADHAV ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARK,VAPI vs. ACIT, CENTARL CIRCLE-1, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

RADHA MADHAV ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARK,VALSAD vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI MAHESHBHAI V. SAVANI, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 305/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. Maheshbhai V. Savani, Surat. 404, Super Diamond Market, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhps 2681 R (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Maheshbhai V. Savani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), 404, Super Diamond Market, Varachha Surat. Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhps 2681 R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr Date Of Hearing 17/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022

section 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. Learned DR for the Revenue pleads that CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts that during the assessment

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

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

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

5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. PCIT has grievously erred in assuming that the Ld. Assessing Officer had not verified that the unsecured loan obtained by the appellant during assessment proceedings. (6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well

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

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit\nexplaining reasons for the delay. It has been stated that the assessee was\nunaware of the passing of the order by the CIT(A) since his registered e-mail\nand mobile number on the income tax portal belonged to his former\nconsultant. Due to non updation

RUCHIT DINESHBHAI DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

5 Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi Vs ITO made by the Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of Section 68, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act would not follow as a natural corollary when the assessee himself has disclosed all the details. To support such submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision

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.

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

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.

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

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.

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

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.

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

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.

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order