DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, 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.

reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year." 10. Since the assessment under section 153A is required to be made after a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, it may be germane to refer to the provisions

BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, 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.

reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year." 10. Since the assessment under section 153A is required to be made after a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, it may be germane to refer to the provisions

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:

reassessment u/s 147/148 cannot be framed on ‘dead person’ is not tenable. She also argued that jurisdiction of assessing officer has been defined in section 124 of the Income Tax Act, whereby virtue of any order issued under section 120 (1

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

1) or sub-section (2) of section 120 or any other provision of the Act, and the Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director, who is directed under clause (b) of sub- section (4) of section 120 to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an assessing

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

1,74,25,000 + 3,60,292) during the year. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the assessee has concealed the income to the extent of Rs. 2,44,52,518/- which is an escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, this is a fit case for issuing notice

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

1,74,25,000 + 3,60,292) during the year. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the assessee has concealed the income to the extent of Rs. 2,44,52,518/- which is an escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, this is a fit case for issuing notice

HITESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD,2, BARDOLI, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hiteshbhai Rameshbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, 466 Kanbivad, Goddha Mahuwa, Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Tax Taluka Valod, Dist. Surat 394630 Vs. Office, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Gujarat, Building, Opp. Jalaram Temple, Station Road, Bardoli- 394601 Pan No. Avdpp 6788 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-Dr

120/- had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Accordingly, after obtaining the requisite approval under section 151(1) of the Act from the competent authority, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2019. The said notice was duly served upon the assessee both by speed post

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

Reassessment Proceedings but the same also remained non-complied. complied. complied. Therefore, Therefore, Therefore, the the the Assessing Assessing Assessing Officer Officer Officer completed the Assessment as Best Judgement Assessment completed the Assessment as Best Judgement Assessment completed the Assessment as Best Judgement Assessment invoking Section 147 r/w Section 144 on 12 invoking Section 147 r/w Section 144 on 12th

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

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

120/-\n7.\nAggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the\nLd.CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the case with following observation:\n\"in the absence of any supporting evidences produced during the proceedings, there\nis no reason to interfere -with the decision of the AO The onus was on the appellant\nto explain

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

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

JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

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

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

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

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

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

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.

120,01,39,474/-. The Sales made in the remaining part of February month and March 2017 is not included. Whereas in the Return of Income field by you for the A.Y. 2017-18, you have shown sales of Rs.76,90,71,597/- only. Please submit your reply explaining the difference and also provide the supporting documents on which

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.

120,01,39,474/-. The Sales made in the remaining part of February month and March 2017 is not included. Whereas in the Return of Income field by you for the A.Y. 2017-18, you have shown sales of Rs.76,90,71,597/- only. Please submit your reply explaining the difference and also provide the supporting documents on which

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.

120,01,39,474/-. The Sales made in the remaining part of February month and March 2017 is not included. Whereas in the Return of Income field by you for the A.Y. 2017-18, you have shown sales of Rs.76,90,71,597/- only. Please submit your reply explaining the difference and also provide the supporting documents on which

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.

120,01,39,474/-. The Sales made in the remaining part of February month and March 2017 is not included. Whereas in the Return of Income field by you for the A.Y. 2017-18, you have shown sales of Rs.76,90,71,597/- only. Please submit your reply explaining the difference and also provide the supporting documents on which