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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

reassessment under section 147 of the Act, should not be made after the expiry of Four Years from the end of assessment year after 31.03.2011, unless there has been any failure on the part of assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The assessee also relied on certain case laws. The ld.CIT(A) after considering

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

reassessment under section 147 of the Act, should not be made after the expiry of Four Years from the end of assessment year after 31.03.2011, unless there has been any failure on the part of assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The assessee also relied on certain case laws. The ld.CIT(A) after considering

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

reassessment. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, disallowed the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act of Rs. 1.18 crores, provision of sludge disposal charges of Rs. 25,093/- and depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body

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

reassessment. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, disallowed the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act of Rs. 1.18 crores, provision of sludge disposal charges of Rs. 25,093/- and depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body

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

reassessment. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, disallowed the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act of Rs. 1.18 crores, provision of sludge disposal charges of Rs. 25,093/- and depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body

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

reassessment. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, disallowed the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act of Rs. 1.18 crores, provision of sludge disposal charges of Rs. 25,093/- and depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body

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

reassessment. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, disallowed the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act of Rs. 1.18 crores, provision of sludge disposal charges of Rs. 25,093/- and depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body

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

reassessment. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, disallowed the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act of Rs. 1.18 crores, provision of sludge disposal charges of Rs. 25,093/- and depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body

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

reassessment. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, disallowed the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act of Rs. 1.18 crores, provision of sludge disposal charges of Rs. 25,093/- and depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body

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

reassessment. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, disallowed the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act of Rs. 1.18 crores, provision of sludge disposal charges of Rs. 25,093/- and depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body

SHRI HITESH HIMMATLAL SAVANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Hitesh Himmatlal Savani, I.T.O. 20-21, Keshav Park Society, Ved Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Road, Surat-395008. Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Pan No. Bijps 5821 H Gate, Surat. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

reassessment invalid. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the submission of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative 9 Sh. Hitesh Himmatlal Savani Vs ITO (Sr.DR) for the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that notice under Section 148 was issued

JHONSON ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.754/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Jhonson Electric Company Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara – 390007. C/O. C.K.Pithawala Bhimpore, Post: Dumas Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aaacj 4908 P अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Sh. Saurabh Soparkar With Sh. Mayur K. Swadia Ars. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2020 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 22.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara Dated 17.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Facts “1. & In Law In Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Short Term Capital Gain. 2. Your Appellant Craves The Right To Add To Or Alter, Amend, Substitute, Delete Or Modify All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

reassessment. The AO also issued show cause notice on 17.02.2015 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why stamp value of Rs.4.6 Crores be not treated as sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gain and further addition of Rs.2.6 Crore should not be made as per the provision of section 50C. The assessee in its reply

M/S. SHANGRILA LATEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Shangrila Latex Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Circle-4, C/O. B.M. Parekh & Co., 203, 2Nd Surat. Floor, Navjivan Society, Bldg. No. 03, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaics1479E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjay S. Kapadia, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2022 28/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

reassessment proceedings, the assessee company was provided copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of the case. The assessee vide letter dated 05.02.2014 filed objections for reopening of the case. The objections for reopening of assessment were duly disposed of, vide by AO by speaking order dated 19.02.2014. 6. Further, a show cause notice was issued

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

reassessment proceedings, the digital image found and seized from\nthe premises of Shri Vikas Vimal Agrawal was confronted to the assessee. The\nimage lies in page 3 of the assessment order. The image shows a ledger account\nhaving total debits of Rs.50,00,000/- and credits of Rs.40,00,000/-. There was\nalso working of interest

NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT

reassessment proceedings, the digital image found and seized from\nthe premises of Shri Vikas Vimal Agrawal was confronted to the assessee. The\nimage lies in page 3 of the assessment order. The image shows a ledger account\nhaving total debits of Rs.50,00,000/- and credits of Rs.40,00,000/-. There was\nalso working of interest

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

reassessment proceedings, the digital image found and seized from\nthe premises of Shri Vikas Vimal Agrawal was confronted to the assessee. The\nimage lies in page 3 of the assessment order. The image shows a ledger account\nhaving total debits of Rs.50,00,000/- and credits of Rs.40,00,000/-. There was\nalso working of interest

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

reassessment order passed u/s 147 is bad in law since had been issued in absence of fresh tangible material, without independent application of judicial mind and without having valid reason to believe of escapement of income; 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of entire alleged non-genuine

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

reassessment order passed u/s 147 is bad in law since had been issued in absence of fresh tangible material, without independent application of judicial mind and without having valid reason to believe of escapement of income; 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of entire alleged non-genuine