DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

5] The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act only on the ground that the parties to whom the share certificates were issued and who had paid the share money had not appeared before the Assessing Officer and the summons could not be served on the addresses given as they were

SHRI HARESH P. SHAH, L/H OF LATE MANJULA P. SHAH,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.894/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sh. Haresh P. Shah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Legal Heir, Late Manjula P. Shah, Valsad Ram, Appartment, I/A, Block No.4, 1St Floor, Opp. Ramwadi, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ayeps2205H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah - Ca Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

5. We note that during the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had issued notice under section 148 dated 22/03/2013 in the name of Smt. Manjula Prabhudas Shah (Dead Person),which is reproduced below ( to the extent relevant for our analysis), for ready reference: “Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Office of the INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD

JAYSHRI GOPALLAL MAHARAJSHRINI SURAT SRUSTI TRUST,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

11 and had also explained reason for delay in filing Form No. 10B due to illness of Accountant who was on leave for long time, matter was to be remanded to respondent to condone delay in filing Form 10B. 8. In the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. Income Tax Officer. (Exemption) [2021] 125 taxmann.com 75 (Gujarat)/[2021] 278 Taxman

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. SATYAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, SILVASA

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment, the Assessing Officer recorded that in response to various notices, the assessee neither explained the fact nor furnished any documentary evidences. The Assessing Officer accordingly disallowed the application of income under Section 11 and 13 of Rs.30,52,808/-. 12. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Appeal of assessee against

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. SATYAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, SILVASA

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment, the Assessing Officer recorded that in response to various notices, the assessee neither explained the fact nor furnished any documentary evidences. The Assessing Officer accordingly disallowed the application of income under Section 11 and 13 of Rs.30,52,808/-. 12. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Appeal of assessee against

ANILKUMAR GAMANLAL MODI, HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. In the above factual matrix, the limited dispute before us relates to cost of acquisition wherein the assessee has substituted the cost of acquisition with the FMV as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 380/- per sq.mtrs and the DVO has valued the property’s FMV as on 1.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq.mtr. There is no dispute regarding full value

SANMUKHLAL NANUBHAI MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. In the above factual matrix, the limited dispute before us relates to cost of acquisition wherein the assessee has substituted the cost of acquisition with the FMV as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 380/- per sq.mtrs and the DVO has valued the property’s FMV as on 1.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq.mtr. There is no dispute regarding full value

JIGNESHKUMAR S. MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. In the above factual matrix, the limited dispute before us relates to cost of acquisition wherein the assessee has substituted the cost of acquisition with the FMV as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 380/- per sq.mtrs and the DVO has valued the property’s FMV as on 1.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq.mtr. There is no dispute regarding full value

GAMANLAL NANUBHAI MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. In the above factual matrix, the limited dispute before us relates to cost of acquisition wherein the assessee has substituted the cost of acquisition with the FMV as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 380/- per sq.mtrs and the DVO has valued the property’s FMV as on 1.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq.mtr. There is no dispute regarding full value

VIJAYKUMAR GAMANLAL MODI, HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. In the above factual matrix, the limited dispute before us relates to cost of acquisition wherein the assessee has substituted the cost of acquisition with the FMV as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 380/- per sq.mtrs and the DVO has valued the property’s FMV as on 1.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq.mtr. There is no dispute regarding full value

MADHUBEN DILIPBHAI MODI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. In the above factual matrix, the limited dispute before us relates to cost of acquisition wherein the assessee has substituted the cost of acquisition with the FMV as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 380/- per sq.mtrs and the DVO has valued the property’s FMV as on 1.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq.mtr. There is no dispute regarding full value

NIKUNJKUMAR D. MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. In the above factual matrix, the limited dispute before us relates to cost of acquisition wherein the assessee has substituted the cost of acquisition with the FMV as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 380/- per sq.mtrs and the DVO has valued the property’s FMV as on 1.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq.mtr. There is no dispute regarding full value

NITIN KUMAR GAMANLAL MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. In the above factual matrix, the limited dispute before us relates to cost of acquisition wherein the assessee has substituted the cost of acquisition with the FMV as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 380/- per sq.mtrs and the DVO has valued the property’s FMV as on 1.04.1981 at Rs. 10.19 per sq.mtr. There is no dispute regarding full value

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

11,51,038/- against demands outstanding in case of the appellant for various years. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 41. We find that ground No. 1 to 5 raised

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

11,51,038/- against demands outstanding in case of the appellant for various years. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 41. We find that ground No. 1 to 5 raised

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

11,51,038/- against demands outstanding in case of the appellant for various years. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 41. We find that ground No. 1 to 5 raised

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

11,51,038/- against demands outstanding in case of the appellant for various years. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 41. We find that ground No. 1 to 5 raised

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

11,51,038/- against demands outstanding in case of the appellant for various years. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 41. We find that ground No. 1 to 5 raised