SANGEETA GOEL L/H SURENDRA PRAKASH JAIN,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2009-10

reassessment proceedings against the dead person. Section 159 which has been relied upon by the revenue shall not be applicable

DESIGNER EXIM PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) M/S Designer Exim Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., D-1203, Panchsheel Heights, Opp.- Ward 1(1)(2), Vs. Pizza Hut, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali Surat. West, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400067 Pan No. Aabcd 4298 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2) of the Act had been issued by the Assessing Officer, thus the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 12/12/2019 is invalid and liable to be quashed as has been held in series of decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Sukhini P Modi (2014) 52 taxmann.com 159

ANAND MAHENDRA KAPADIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings. I.T.A No. 709 & 710//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 3 Anand Mahendra Kapadia vs. ITO The assessing officer found that there is an entry of interest paid of Rs.2,97,600, therefore made the same as addition and also proposed for penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act for violations of provisions of Section 269SS

ANAND MAHENDRA KAPADIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings. I.T.A No. 709 & 710//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 3 Anand Mahendra Kapadia vs. ITO The assessing officer found that there is an entry of interest paid of Rs.2,97,600, therefore made the same as addition and also proposed for penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act for violations of provisions of Section 269SS

FARHA S. KADRI,BILIMORA vs. ITO, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, the original ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Farha S Kadri, I.T.O. 762, Bazar Street, Bunder Road, Ward-2, Vs. Bilimora (Gujarat)-396321 Navsari. Pan No. Annpk 8150 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148 is not valid. Since reopening is not valid, therefore, subsequent action of Assessing Officer is void ab initio. The ld. AR further submits that the Assessing Officer made reopening on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. It is an admitted fact that the ITA 331/Srt/2019 Farha S Kadri Vs ITO information was received from Investigation Wing, therefore, cannot

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

159/- (28,80,49,899 – 4,26,19,740).\nRather, the addition was restricted to Rs. 4,26,19,740/-.\n1.20 The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Surat Tribunal in the case of Shree\nKuberji Associates / Shree Kuberji Leisure & Infraspace LLP wherein in this particular\ngroup, margin of 13 % profit was upheld vide

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

159/- (28,80,49,899 – 4,26,19,740).\nRather, the addition was restricted to Rs. 4,26,19,740/-.\n1.20 The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Surat Tribunal in the case of Shree\nKuberji Associates / Shree Kuberji Leisure & Infraspace LLP wherein in this particular\ngroup, margin of 13 % profit was upheld vide

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

159/- (28,80,49,899 – 4,26,19,740).\nRather, the addition was restricted to Rs. 4,26,19,740/-.\n1.20 The appellant relies on the decision of Hon'ble Surat Tribunal in the case of Shree\nKuberji Associates / Shree Kuberji Leisure & Infraspace LLP wherein in this particular\ngroup, margin of 13 % profit was upheld vide