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

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. of reassessment proceedings. It is meant to clarify the correct legislative intention in respect of the amendment relating to Section

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. of reassessment proceedings. It is meant to clarify the correct legislative intention in respect of the amendment relating to Section

SHRIFAL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. of reassessment proceedings. It is meant to clarify the correct legislative intention in respect of the amendment relating to Section

M/S. DHARAM IMPEX,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.288 To 293/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck 2552 R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.306 To 311/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1579/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Maniprabha Impex Pvt.Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 6219 L अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.312 To 317/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1580/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Dharam Impex Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffd 2692 C अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent)

191 Taxman 319 (Chhattisgarh) Hon'ble High Court held that burden of proving that statement under section 132(4) was obtained by coercion or intimidation lies upon assessee. Proof of threat or coercion is necessary for valid retraction. The allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed by the search team and was forced to make an admission

M/S. MANIPRABHA IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.288 To 293/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck 2552 R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.306 To 311/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1579/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Maniprabha Impex Pvt.Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 6219 L अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.312 To 317/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1580/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Dharam Impex Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffd 2692 C अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent)

191 Taxman 319 (Chhattisgarh) Hon'ble High Court held that burden of proving that statement under section 132(4) was obtained by coercion or intimidation lies upon assessee. Proof of threat or coercion is necessary for valid retraction. The allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed by the search team and was forced to make an admission

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

191 ITR 667 (SC), however, it does not eliminate the condition of business expediencies. The ld. AR for the assessee submits the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Anupam Tele Services vs. Income Tax Officer (2014) 43 taxmann.com 199 (Guj) has laid down certain guidelines / conditions to allow cash payment under certain circumstances

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

191 ITR 667 (SC), however, it does not eliminate the condition of business expediencies. The ld. AR for the assessee submits the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Anupam Tele Services vs. Income Tax Officer (2014) 43 taxmann.com 199 (Guj) has laid down certain guidelines / conditions to allow cash payment under certain circumstances

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

191 ITR 667 (SC), however, it does not eliminate the condition of business expediencies. The ld. AR for the assessee submits the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Anupam Tele Services vs. Income Tax Officer (2014) 43 taxmann.com 199 (Guj) has laid down certain guidelines / conditions to allow cash payment under certain circumstances

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-6,, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

191 ITR 667 (SC), however, it does not eliminate the condition of business expediencies. The ld. AR for the assessee submits the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Anupam Tele Services vs. Income Tax Officer (2014) 43 taxmann.com 199 (Guj) has laid down certain guidelines / conditions to allow cash payment under certain circumstances

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, pursuant to the receipt of the DVO report, the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause to the assessee as to why the cost of acquisition as determined by the DVO should not be taken and in response, the assessee has objected to the reference to the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. However, the assessee’s objections

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, pursuant to the receipt of the DVO report, the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause to the assessee as to why the cost of acquisition as determined by the DVO should not be taken and in response, the assessee has objected to the reference to the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. However, the assessee’s objections

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, pursuant to the receipt of the DVO report, the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause to the assessee as to why the cost of acquisition as determined by the DVO should not be taken and in response, the assessee has objected to the reference to the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. However, the assessee’s objections

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, pursuant to the receipt of the DVO report, the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause to the assessee as to why the cost of acquisition as determined by the DVO should not be taken and in response, the assessee has objected to the reference to the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. However, the assessee’s objections

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, pursuant to the receipt of the DVO report, the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause to the assessee as to why the cost of acquisition as determined by the DVO should not be taken and in response, the assessee has objected to the reference to the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. However, the assessee’s objections

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, pursuant to the receipt of the DVO report, the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause to the assessee as to why the cost of acquisition as determined by the DVO should not be taken and in response, the assessee has objected to the reference to the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. However, the assessee’s objections

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, pursuant to the receipt of the DVO report, the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause to the assessee as to why the cost of acquisition as determined by the DVO should not be taken and in response, the assessee has objected to the reference to the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. However, the assessee’s objections

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, pursuant to the receipt of the DVO report, the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause to the assessee as to why the cost of acquisition as determined by the DVO should not be taken and in response, the assessee has objected to the reference to the DVO u/s 55A of the Act. However, the assessee’s objections