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 or recompilation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in levying interest under section 234D of the Act without appreciating the fact that as per the provisions

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 or recompilation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in levying interest under section 234D of the Act without appreciating the fact that as per the provisions

SHRI KUSHAL R JAIN,SURAT vs. ITO-3(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 420 & 504 /Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Surat. Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Surat. Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpl0577D (Revenue) (Assessee) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 215/Srt/2020 & 575/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) Shri Kushal R. Jain, The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. Surat. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Shri Kushal R. Jain, Surat. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Advpj6155B (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessees & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Ita. 420 & 504, 575/Srt/2019 & 215/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Gautam C. Jain & Kushal R. Jain Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

293/-). 8. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee was well as Revenue both are in appeal before us. 9. The contention of the Revenue is that addition made by the Assessing Officer must be sustained. However, contention of the assessee is that the addition restricted at the rate of 5% of bogus purchases should

ITO, WARD-3(3)(3), SURAT vs. KUSHAL R JAIN, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 420 & 504 /Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Surat. Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Surat. Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpl0577D (Revenue) (Assessee) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 215/Srt/2020 & 575/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) Shri Kushal R. Jain, The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. Surat. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Shri Kushal R. Jain, Surat. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Advpj6155B (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessees & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Ita. 420 & 504, 575/Srt/2019 & 215/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Gautam C. Jain & Kushal R. Jain Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

293/-). 8. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee was well as Revenue both are in appeal before us. 9. The contention of the Revenue is that addition made by the Assessing Officer must be sustained. However, contention of the assessee is that the addition restricted at the rate of 5% of bogus purchases should

GAUTAMCHAND CHUNILAL JAIN,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 420 & 504 /Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Surat. Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Surat. Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpl0577D (Revenue) (Assessee) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 215/Srt/2020 & 575/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) Shri Kushal R. Jain, The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. Surat. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Shri Kushal R. Jain, Surat. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Advpj6155B (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessees & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Ita. 420 & 504, 575/Srt/2019 & 215/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Gautam C. Jain & Kushal R. Jain Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

293/-). 8. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee was well as Revenue both are in appeal before us. 9. The contention of the Revenue is that addition made by the Assessing Officer must be sustained. However, contention of the assessee is that the addition restricted at the rate of 5% of bogus purchases should

ITO, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. GAUTAMCHAND CHUNILAL JAIN, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 420 & 504 /Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Surat. Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Surat. Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpl0577D (Revenue) (Assessee) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 215/Srt/2020 & 575/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) Shri Kushal R. Jain, The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. Surat. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Shri Kushal R. Jain, Surat. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Advpj6155B (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessees & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Ita. 420 & 504, 575/Srt/2019 & 215/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Gautam C. Jain & Kushal R. Jain Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

293/-). 8. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee was well as Revenue both are in appeal before us. 9. The contention of the Revenue is that addition made by the Assessing Officer must be sustained. However, contention of the assessee is that the addition restricted at the rate of 5% of bogus purchases should

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.

293 stated as follows: 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 “Income Tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income. It is not meant to be a tax on anything else. It is one tax, not a collection of taxes essentially distinct

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.

293 stated as follows: 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 “Income Tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income. It is not meant to be a tax on anything else. It is one tax, not a collection of taxes essentially distinct

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.

293 stated as follows: 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 “Income Tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income. It is not meant to be a tax on anything else. It is one tax, not a collection of taxes essentially distinct

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.

293 stated as follows: 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 “Income Tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income. It is not meant to be a tax on anything else. It is one tax, not a collection of taxes essentially distinct

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.

293 stated as follows: 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 “Income Tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income. It is not meant to be a tax on anything else. It is one tax, not a collection of taxes essentially distinct

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.

293 stated as follows: 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 “Income Tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income. It is not meant to be a tax on anything else. It is one tax, not a collection of taxes essentially distinct