ALKESHKUMAR MAGANBHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO),WARD 1(1) BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Alkeshkumar Maganbhai Patel, Ito Ward 1(1), 30 Atmiya Nagar, Near Kgm Income Tax Office, Bharuch, Vidyalay Zadeshw Zadeshwar, Vs. Income-Tax Office, Hari Kunj, Bharuch-392011. Station Road, Bharuch-356069. Pan No. Bklpp 8435 L Appellant Respondent

12- 10-2019 is bad in law and liable to be quashed and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding the same as valid. 2. Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,17,98,862/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Alkeshkumar Maganbhai Patel Alkeshkumar Maganbhai

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 10. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in levying interest under section 234C of the Act without appreciating the fact that amount under section 234C ought

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ADDL.CIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 10. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in levying interest under section 234C of the Act without appreciating the fact that amount under section 234C ought

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 10. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in levying interest under section 234C of the Act without appreciating the fact that amount under section 234C ought

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE DY.CIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 10. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in levying interest under section 234C of the Act without appreciating the fact that amount under section 234C ought

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ACIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 10. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in levying interest under section 234C of the Act without appreciating the fact that amount under section 234C ought

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 10. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in levying interest under section 234C of the Act without appreciating the fact that amount under section 234C ought

NA vs. ARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN,NAVSARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.272/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, V The Income Tax Officer, Agiary Street, Malesar, Navsari S Exemption Ward, Surat. Taluka, Navsari – 396 445. . [Pan: Aaatn 6124 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri H.R.Vepari – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Vaishav – Cit - Dr

10(143(3) r.w.s 147) 12-3-2014 •€€€€€€ A.Y.2011 -12((143(3) r.w.s 147) 30-1-2013 Returns filed on 19-3-2013 •€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€A.Y.2007-08 to 2009-10 •€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ A.Y.2006-07 and A.Y.2011-12 In the above case, application was made during the subsistence of the assessment proceedings, however, registration was granted subsequent to the conclusion of the assessment proceedings, the Hon'ble Tribunal

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(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.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment for the verification, independent opinion needs to be held to be absent. 17.Resultantly, this appeal fails and dismissed accordingly.” 31. Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner Of Income vs Smt. Bindu Garg, ITA No.125.2020, order dated 15 January, 2021, held as follows: “10. We have heard Mr. Hossain at length and given our thoughtful

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL PUKHRAJ JAIN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.89/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Anil Pukhraj Jain, Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206-2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent)/ "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q ""या"ेप सं Cross Objection No.10/Srt/2021 (A/O Ita No.89/Srt/2017) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) Anil Pukhraj Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206- 2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Vs. Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. Appellant/Co-Objector (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2023

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. During the assessment stage assessee did not file return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act but he filed reply in the course of assessment proceedings stating to treat original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, as the return of income field

KANCHAN DEVI AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Pruseth

10. The contention of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer was required to pass order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and also issue notice under Section 148 of the Act within the surviving period of three days (which was extended to seven days) of filing its reply on 06.06.2022. Thus, the Assessing Officer had time limit till

KANCHAN DEVI AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Pruseth

10. The contention of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer was required to pass order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and also issue notice under Section 148 of the Act within the surviving period of three days (which was extended to seven days) of filing its reply on 06.06.2022. Thus, the Assessing Officer had time limit till

JIGNESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Jigneshbhai Arvindbhai Patel, Ito Ward-2(3)(2), 84, Angreji Faliyu, Opp. Post Income Tax Office, Majura Gate, Office, Amroli, Surat-394107. Vs. Surat-395001. Pan No. Bczpp 8713 R Appellant Respondent

10. In view of above, the impugned notice dated 31.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act would be invalid notice as issued under section 148 of the Act would be invalid notice as issued under section 148 of the Act would be invalid notice as the said notice is issued after 23.06.2022 as per the decision of d notice

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

reassessment proceedings, if the twin conditions prescribed under Section 147 of the Act are satisfied. 23. In fact, in three recent judgments; the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld the reopening on similar facts. The case is squarely covered against the assessee by these judgments which are: • Yogendrakumar Gupta vs. ITO 366 ITR 186 (Guj) • Peass Industrial Engineers

SANJAY SIVABHAGWAN KEYAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal Ito, Ward – 2(3)(4), Flat No.304, 3Rd Floor, Room No.613, Vatika Township, Near Model, Vs. Aaaykar Bhavan, Township, Parvat Patia Majura Gate, Surat - 395010. Surat - 395002. Pan No. Adspk 6097N Appellant Respondent

section 44AF, and it was submitted that c were made by the assessee out of cash sales of his regular business were made by the assessee out of cash sales of his regular business were made by the assessee out of cash sales of his regular business activity of trading of laser dyed textile, opening cash balance and activity

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

10,00,000 12,12,00,000 The assessee claims to have made these cash deposits sourced from the cash sales made prior to demonetization period. In the survey proceedings, it was found that ITA Nos. 30 & 51/SRT/2022 & 303-306 & 312/SRT/2022 M/s. Dagina Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. there was huge irregularity and as per the computer records, the bills were prepared

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRA CIR.2, SURAT vs. DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

10,00,000 12,12,00,000 The assessee claims to have made these cash deposits sourced from the cash sales made prior to demonetization period. In the survey proceedings, it was found that ITA Nos. 30 & 51/SRT/2022 & 303-306 & 312/SRT/2022 M/s. Dagina Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. there was huge irregularity and as per the computer records, the bills were prepared

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

10,00,000 12,12,00,000 The assessee claims to have made these cash deposits sourced from the cash sales made prior to demonetization period. In the survey proceedings, it was found that ITA Nos. 30 & 51/SRT/2022 & 303-306 & 312/SRT/2022 M/s. Dagina Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. there was huge irregularity and as per the computer records, the bills were prepared