HARIKRISHNA JEWELS,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.354/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Court Hearing) Harikrishna Jewels, Principal Commissioner Of 201, Sunstar Building, Opp. बनाम/ Income Tax-1,, Surat, Room New Patidar Bhavan, No.123, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Vs. Mahidharpura, Surat-395 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil 003 Hospital, Surat -395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagfh 3864 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2025

exemption of Rs.5,51,33,350/- claimed u/s 10AA of the Act is required to be disallowed. Accordingly, assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 25.12.2019 was set aside on the pretext that no enquiry was undertaken by the AO in respect of manufacturing activities undertaken by the appellant in the Special Economic Zone

GAUTAM PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH HUF,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

SMT. KANCHANBEN PRAVINBHAI SHETH,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MAHAVEER SHANTILAL JAIN, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

exempt, in that event an alternate basis for taxing the income in the hands of the AOP of the contributories is sought to be set up. For the reasons already indicated, the entire exercise is only contingent on a future event and a consequence that may enure upon the decision of the Tribunal, that again if the Tribunal were

SAHADARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

exempt in the hands of sugarcane growers\nas agricultural income while the assesse society is a pure business\nentity and not a charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

exempt in the hands of sugarcane growers\nas agricultural income while the assesse society is a pure business\nentity and not a charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that

MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,.,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, , NAVSARI

exempt in the hands of sugarcane growers\nas agricultural income while the assesse society is a pure business\nentity and not a charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

exempt in the hands of sugarcane growers\nas agricultural income while the assesse society is a pure business\nentity and not a charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG, KAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD., NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

exempt in the hands of sugarcane growers\nas agricultural income while the assesse society is a pure business\nentity and not a charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that

SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

exempt in the hands of sugarcane growers\nas agricultural income while the assesse society is a pure business\nentity and not a charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that

SAHAKARI KHAND UDUOG MANDAL LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

exempt in the hands of sugarcane growers\nas agricultural income while the assesse society is a pure business\nentity and not a charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that

TARA RAJU PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, , SURAT

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raju Maganlal Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Auspp 1436 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Tara Raju Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Avdpp 6714 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Transfer Pricing), Ahmedabad on 27/03/2018. Notice under Section 148 dated 28/03/2018 was served upon the assessee through speed post. The Assessing Officer recorded that in response to notice under Section 148, no return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer further recorded that despite serving several notices, which was allegedly served, no justification of cash deposit was Raju Maganlal Patel

SHRI RAJU MAGANLAL PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT. TAXATION, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Raju Maganlal Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Auspp 1436 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Tara Raju Patel, I.T.O. C/O-Dinkarbhai T. Patel, Shankar (International Taxation), Vs. Talao, Via-Dungri, Valsad. Surat. Pan No. Avdpp 6714 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Transfer Pricing), Ahmedabad on 27/03/2018. Notice under Section 148 dated 28/03/2018 was served upon the assessee through speed post. The Assessing Officer recorded that in response to notice under Section 148, no return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer further recorded that despite serving several notices, which was allegedly served, no justification of cash deposit was Raju Maganlal Patel

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT vs. SMT. URMI NILESH NAGARSETH, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Smt Urmi Nilesh Nagarseth, Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat C-4, Dharam Palace, B/H. Sneh Sankul Hall, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan : Abrpn1596Q Appellant Respondednt

transfer of land registration and paying market price. The contention of assessee was not accepted by A.O. The AO took his view that land in question was not acquired by way of compulsory acquisition, but it was purchased from assessee after negotiating the rate. The AO disallowed exemption

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE., NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,, NAVASARI

exempt in the hands of sugarcane growers\nas agricultural income while the assesse society is a pure business\nentity and not a charitable trust.\n(vi) That the appellant could not prove that a higher price was paid by\nit to the farmers on account of higher yield or some other factors.\nBesides nowhere it has been claimed that

DHANSUKHBHAI PARAGJIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1021/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dhansukhbhai Deputy Commissioner Of Paragjibhai Patel, Income-Tax, 143, Brahaman Faliya, Circle - 2(3) Surat Dindoli Udhna 394210 Pan: Avdpp7007 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

exemption under section 10(37) is available where the assessee has been carrying on agricultural operation during the period of two years immediately preceding from the date of transfer and the land was acquired under compulsory acquisition. The assessee has filed a letter no. TBT/OUT/ 4089 /22 dated. 23.09.2014 and claimed that agricultural block situated at Dindoli Surat was kept

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

exempt either wholly or partially, any producer of sugar from payment of the additional price due from him under sub-clause (1) in respect of sugarcane purchased for that factory during that year. (4) The Central Government may appoint any person or authority as it thinks fit for the purpose of determining the additional price due from a producer

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

exempt either wholly or partially, any producer of sugar from payment of the additional price due from him under sub-clause (1) in respect of sugarcane purchased for that factory during that year. (4) The Central Government may appoint any person or authority as it thinks fit for the purpose of determining the additional price due from a producer