ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, 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.

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, 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.

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PAMECHA, AJMER

In the result the ground No

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

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, 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.

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, 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.

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. LEMON TECHNOMIST PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

153 65,17,96,563 income Mfg. and Operational 2,57,26,449 2,47,95,784 Expenses Another discrepancy, that the assessing officer found in the books of the assessee company was that, in previous year related to AY 2013-14 there is a sizeable margin in sales and cost of material sold (Sales - Cost of Material - Increase/Decrease

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LTD., , VAPI

In the result, ground No.3 & 4 raised by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 2 ITA No. 153 & 732/SRT/2018 AYs.13-14 &14-15 M/s Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. 30.03.2016. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order assessed total income of Rs.2.44 crores as business income by making addition of the loss on sale of fixed asset, and capital contribution of Rs.24

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAPI WASTE & MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD.), VAPI

In the result, ground No.3 & 4 raised by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 2 ITA No. 153 & 732/SRT/2018 AYs.13-14 &14-15 M/s Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. 30.03.2016. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order assessed total income of Rs.2.44 crores as business income by making addition of the loss on sale of fixed asset, and capital contribution of Rs.24

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

153 (Calcutta) and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Anuj Jayendra Shah Vs Pr.CIT in ITA No. 2546/Mum/2015 dated 30/12/2015. 16. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. Basically, the ld. Pr.CIT in his show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act identified

ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT vs. SHRI ARVINDBHAI RATANBHAI MOKANI, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Arvindbhai Ratanbhai Mokani, Ward-3(3)(1), D-260-261, Vittal Nagar Society, Vs. Surat. Varachha Road, Hira Baug, Surat-395006. Pan No. Ahfpm 2302 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee further submitted that he is engaged in the business of yarn trading and was having bank account in HDFC bank, Varachha Road, Surat. The assessee made cash deposit on various dates in his bank account. The assessee furnished such details as per para 3.1 as recorded on page No. 5 of order

SHRI GYANCHAND & JAIN,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

section 151 was availed by assessing officer before making reopening has substance. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground No. 1 of appeal by assessee. Hence, the ground No. 1 in assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 2 in assessee’s and ground No. 1 &2 in revenues appeal are interconnected relates to the additions

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL GHANSHYAMBHAI KUMAWAT,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

section 151 was availed by assessing officer before making reopening has substance. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground No. 1 of appeal by assessee. Hence, the ground No. 1 in assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 2 in assessee’s and ground No. 1 &2 in revenues appeal are interconnected relates to the additions

SHRI NARESH R. PAREEK,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

section 151 was availed by assessing officer before making reopening has substance. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground No. 1 of appeal by assessee. Hence, the ground No. 1 in assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 2 in assessee’s and ground No. 1 &2 in revenues appeal are interconnected relates to the additions

SHRI ANIL G. KUMAWAT,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

section 151 was availed by assessing officer before making reopening has substance. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground No. 1 of appeal by assessee. Hence, the ground No. 1 in assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 2 in assessee’s and ground No. 1 &2 in revenues appeal are interconnected relates to the additions

SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR LODHA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

section 151 was availed by assessing officer before making reopening has substance. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground No. 1 of appeal by assessee. Hence, the ground No. 1 in assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 2 in assessee’s and ground No. 1 &2 in revenues appeal are interconnected relates to the additions

SHRI SHARAD Y. JAIN,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

section 151 was availed by assessing officer before making reopening has substance. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground No. 1 of appeal by assessee. Hence, the ground No. 1 in assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 2 in assessee’s and ground No. 1 &2 in revenues appeal are interconnected relates to the additions

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL GHANSHYAMBHAI KUMAWAT,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

section 151 was availed by assessing officer before making reopening has substance. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground No. 1 of appeal by assessee. Hence, the ground No. 1 in assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 2 in assessee’s and ground No. 1 &2 in revenues appeal are interconnected relates to the additions

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT vs. SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR LODHA,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

section 151 was availed by assessing officer before making reopening has substance. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground No. 1 of appeal by assessee. Hence, the ground No. 1 in assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 2 in assessee’s and ground No. 1 &2 in revenues appeal are interconnected relates to the additions

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT vs. SHRI GYANCHAND SUGAMCHAND JAIN,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

section 151 was availed by assessing officer before making reopening has substance. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground No. 1 of appeal by assessee. Hence, the ground No. 1 in assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 2 in assessee’s and ground No. 1 &2 in revenues appeal are interconnected relates to the additions