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 proceedings, if the twin conditions prescribed ITA Nos.52/SRT/2022 & 171, 174/SRT/2021/IT(SS)A 69, 70, 75 & 76/SRT/2021 Betex India Ltd. & Dhanpriya Prints Pvt. Ltd. under Section 147 of the Act are satisfied. Therefore, considering these facts and circumstances we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 28. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (In ITA No.171/SRT/2021

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)

reassessment would be six AYs preceding the year of search. The said amendment is prospective. 12. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.” 24. Respectfully following the judgment of Hon`ble High Court of Delhi in the case of RRJ Securities Limited (Supra) and in the case

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)

reassessment would be six AYs preceding the year of search. The said amendment is prospective. 12. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.” 24. Respectfully following the judgment of Hon`ble High Court of Delhi in the case of RRJ Securities Limited (Supra) and in the case

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. 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed

KAMLESH SINGH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(2), , SURAT

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only, except the appeal against the order under section 271F

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No.227/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 144/ 147] Ita No.228/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(B)] Ita No.229/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(C)] Ita No.230/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271-B]

35, the assessee specifically mentioned about the date of service of notice as on 17/02/2020. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered such fact while adjudicating the appeal of assessee. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made a request for adjournment vide application dated 16.09.2021 which was uploaded on ITBA portal. Thereafter the assessee has not received any communication

KAMLESH SINGH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(2), , SURAT

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only, except the appeal against the order under section 271F

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No.227/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 144/ 147] Ita No.228/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(B)] Ita No.229/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(C)] Ita No.230/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271-B]

35, the assessee specifically mentioned about the date of service of notice as on 17/02/2020. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered such fact while adjudicating the appeal of assessee. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made a request for adjournment vide application dated 16.09.2021 which was uploaded on ITBA portal. Thereafter the assessee has not received any communication

KAMLESH SINGH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(2), , SURAT

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only, except the appeal against the order under section 271F

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No.227/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 144/ 147] Ita No.228/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(B)] Ita No.229/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(C)] Ita No.230/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271-B]

35, the assessee specifically mentioned about the date of service of notice as on 17/02/2020. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered such fact while adjudicating the appeal of assessee. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made a request for adjournment vide application dated 16.09.2021 which was uploaded on ITBA portal. Thereafter the assessee has not received any communication

KAMLESH SINGH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(2), , SURAT

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only, except the appeal against the order under section 271F

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No.227/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 144/ 147] Ita No.228/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(B)] Ita No.229/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(C)] Ita No.230/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271-B]

35, the assessee specifically mentioned about the date of service of notice as on 17/02/2020. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered such fact while adjudicating the appeal of assessee. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made a request for adjournment vide application dated 16.09.2021 which was uploaded on ITBA portal. Thereafter the assessee has not received any communication

KAMLESH SINGH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2)(2), , SURAT

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only, except the appeal against the order under section 271F

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiita No.227/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 144/ 147] Ita No.228/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(B)] Ita No.229/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271(1)(C)] Ita No.230/Srt/2021 [Order Under Section 271-B]

35, the assessee specifically mentioned about the date of service of notice as on 17/02/2020. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered such fact while adjudicating the appeal of assessee. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee made a request for adjournment vide application dated 16.09.2021 which was uploaded on ITBA portal. Thereafter the assessee has not received any communication

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

35 taxmann.com 61 (Guj); Sai Consulting Engineers (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT,Circle-4(1) (2017) and Royal Infrastructure vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2) (2019) 108 taxmann.com 388 (Guj). Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee submits that even on principle of merger no re- assessment is not valid, to support his submission, Ld. Sr. counsel for assessee further relied upon