NARPATSINH PRABHATSINH SOLANKI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, SURAT

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

reassessment order cannot\nbe condoned by referring to section 292BB of the Act.\n(6) When the assessee had filed return of income, it is mandatory to issue\nnotice u/s 143(2) of the Act before finalising the assessment proceedings\n(7) The Hon. Delhi High Court had also taken the similar view in the case of\nPri

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

reassessed on 19.02.2016 for ASST. Year 2011-12 by the Department and a total addition of Rs.92,03,181/- had been made by the Department on account of unexplained investment and unexplained income, ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers against which your assessee did not prefer

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

reassessed on 19.02.2016 for ASST. Year 2011-12 by the Department and a total addition of Rs.92,03,181/- had been made by the Department on account of unexplained investment and unexplained income, ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers against which your assessee did not prefer

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

reassessed on 19.02.2016 for ASST. Year 2011-12 by the Department and a total addition of Rs.92,03,181/- had been made by the Department on account of unexplained investment and unexplained income, ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers against which your assessee did not prefer

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

reassessed on 19.02.2016 for ASST. Year 2011-12 by the Department and a total addition of Rs.92,03,181/- had been made by the Department on account of unexplained investment and unexplained income, ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers against which your assessee did not prefer

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

reassessed on 19.02.2016 for ASST. Year 2011-12 by the Department and a total addition of Rs.92,03,181/- had been made by the Department on account of unexplained investment and unexplained income, ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers against which your assessee did not prefer

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

reassessed on 19.02.2016 for ASST. Year 2011-12 by the Department and a total addition of Rs.92,03,181/- had been made by the Department on account of unexplained investment and unexplained income, ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers against which your assessee did not prefer

ISCON COPPER PRIVATE LIMITTED,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

117 (Bombay), wherein it was held as under: 17. We have approached the issue of interpretation that has arisen for decision in these appeals, both as a.matter of first principle, based on the language used in section 147(1) and on the basis of the precedent on the subject. We agree with the submission which has been urged on behalf

NAZAR IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(3), SURAT (CURRENT JURISDICTION), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Nazar Impex Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395 003 Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccn3603R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’), Dated 26.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeals Are As Under: “1. Ground 6. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of Income Tax, Act 1961 Without Pointing Out Any Defect In Books Of Account & Even The Return Income On The Basis Of Books Of Account Were Also Not Disputed.

section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the issue which is subject matter of appeal cannot be considered again in reassessment proceeding. 7. Ground 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case