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

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 and appellate proceedings. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the penalty is leviable since the assessment was reopened under section 147 on the ground that the income has escaped assessment because of false / wrong claim of deduction under section

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 and appellate proceedings. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the penalty is leviable since the assessment was reopened under section 147 on the ground that the income has escaped assessment because of false / wrong claim of deduction under section

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 and appellate proceedings. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the penalty is leviable since the assessment was reopened under section 147 on the ground that the income has escaped assessment because of false / wrong claim of deduction under section

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA, SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

42,70,985/- Pvt. Ltd. 5. Kalash AFRPJ9962J 1,09,30,886/- Enterprise 6. Sparsh Export AACKS0761R 2,85,45,600/- Pvt. Ltd. 7. Sum Diam ABAFS0852K 24,09,500/- Total 20,78,10,891/- 10. During the course of search proceedings, certain documents were also seized which contain names of different concerns along with the names of the directors

SHRI RAVJIBHAI B DHAMELIYA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

42,70,985/- Pvt. Ltd. 5. Kalash AFRPJ9962J 1,09,30,886/- Enterprise 6. Sparsh Export AACKS0761R 2,85,45,600/- Pvt. Ltd. 7. Sum Diam ABAFS0852K 24,09,500/- Total 20,78,10,891/- 10. During the course of search proceedings, certain documents were also seized which contain names of different concerns along with the names of the directors

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,, SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

42,70,985/- Pvt. Ltd. 5. Kalash AFRPJ9962J 1,09,30,886/- Enterprise 6. Sparsh Export AACKS0761R 2,85,45,600/- Pvt. Ltd. 7. Sum Diam ABAFS0852K 24,09,500/- Total 20,78,10,891/- 10. During the course of search proceedings, certain documents were also seized which contain names of different concerns along with the names of the directors

SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

42,70,985/- Pvt. Ltd. 5. Kalash AFRPJ9962J 1,09,30,886/- Enterprise 6. Sparsh Export AACKS0761R 2,85,45,600/- Pvt. Ltd. 7. Sum Diam ABAFS0852K 24,09,500/- Total 20,78,10,891/- 10. During the course of search proceedings, certain documents were also seized which contain names of different concerns along with the names of the directors

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

42,10,934/- as unaccounted business income\nof the assessee. He has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act\nfor under-reporting of income due to misreporting. The CIT(A), while deciding\nthe issue, has accepted plea of the assessee that only profit element on the\ncash receipt has to be taxed. He has held that

SANJAY SIVABHAGWAN KEYAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal Ito, Ward – 2(3)(4), Flat No.304, 3Rd Floor, Room No.613, Vatika Township, Near Model, Vs. Aaaykar Bhavan, Township, Parvat Patia Majura Gate, Surat - 395010. Surat - 395002. Pan No. Adspk 6097N Appellant Respondent

section 44AF, and it was submitted that c were made by the assessee out of cash sales of his regular business were made by the assessee out of cash sales of his regular business were made by the assessee out of cash sales of his regular business activity of trading of laser dyed textile, opening cash balance and activity

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI YOGENDRARAJ U. SINGHVI,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2926/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Yogendraraj U Singhvi, V. Income Tax Officer, Office No. 103, Ist Floor, H. No. 6/1946-B, Ward- 2(3)(8), Dalagia Street, Mahidharpura Surat Aayakar Bhavan Surat [Pan: Anjps 9745 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.79/Ahd/2017: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, V. Shri Yogendraraj U Singhvi, Ward- 2(3)(8), Office No. 103, Ist Floor, H. No. 6/1946- Aayakar Bhavan Surat B, Dalagia Street, Mahidharpura Surat [Pan: Anjps 9745 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.A. िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri S.R. Meena, Sr. D.R. राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By 24.07.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 25.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of Pronouncement

reassessment could not be held unjustified. 11. In the light of ratio as laid down by above discussed judgements and that the AO has in his possession a credible information that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment hence proceedings u/s.147 read with section 148 Page 16 of 24 Yogendraraj U Singhvi v. ITO 2(3)(8)/I.T.A. No.2926/AHD/2016/A.Y.07-08 & I.T.A.No

SHRI YOGENDRARAJ U.SINGHVI,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2926/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Yogendraraj U Singhvi, V. Income Tax Officer, Office No. 103, Ist Floor, H. No. 6/1946-B, Ward- 2(3)(8), Dalagia Street, Mahidharpura Surat Aayakar Bhavan Surat [Pan: Anjps 9745 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.79/Ahd/2017: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, V. Shri Yogendraraj U Singhvi, Ward- 2(3)(8), Office No. 103, Ist Floor, H. No. 6/1946- Aayakar Bhavan Surat B, Dalagia Street, Mahidharpura Surat [Pan: Anjps 9745 G] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.A. िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri S.R. Meena, Sr. D.R. राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By 24.07.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 25.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of Pronouncement

reassessment could not be held unjustified. 11. In the light of ratio as laid down by above discussed judgements and that the AO has in his possession a credible information that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment hence proceedings u/s.147 read with section 148 Page 16 of 24 Yogendraraj U Singhvi v. ITO 2(3)(8)/I.T.A. No.2926/AHD/2016/A.Y.07-08 & I.T.A.No

SHRI SUDEEP MAHENDRABHAI SHAH,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

reassessment under section 147 of the IT Act must fail.” Reliance is further placed in the case of Peass Industrial Engineering 12. (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 185 (Gujarat) where information received from Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad was held to be sufficient material to constitute reason to believe for reopening of assessment even in the case where scrutiny assessment

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

reassessment notice before the Commissioner (Appeals) and in fact, the assessee did so for availing that opportunity. [Para 7]. 11. In view of above discussion, we held that the reopening of assessment ground is s not maintainable at this stage as already stands decided and cannot be re-visited, nor there is any anomaly in following the due procedure, hence

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

reassessment notice before the Commissioner (Appeals) and in fact, the assessee did so for availing that opportunity. [Para 7]. 11. In view of above discussion, we held that the reopening of assessment ground is s not maintainable at this stage as already stands decided and cannot be re-visited, nor there is any anomaly in following the due procedure, hence

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

reassessment notice before the Commissioner (Appeals) and in fact, the assessee did so for availing that opportunity. [Para 7]. 11. In view of above discussion, we held that the reopening of assessment ground is s not maintainable at this stage as already stands decided and cannot be re-visited, nor there is any anomaly in following the due procedure, hence

SHRI RATILAL KHUSHALDAS MALI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

reassessment notice before the Commissioner (Appeals) and in fact, the assessee did so for availing that opportunity. [Para 7]. 11. In view of above discussion, we held that the reopening of assessment ground is s not maintainable at this stage as already stands decided and cannot be re-visited, nor there is any anomaly in following the due procedure, hence

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 10. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in levying interest under Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. Vs DCIT section 234D of the Act without appreciating the fact that