DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, 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

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

44,52,518/- which is an escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, this is a fit case for issuing notice u/s. 148.” 14. From the above reasons recorded, it is vivid that there is nothing mentioned about share capital and share premium. Thus, assessment was not reopened to examine the issue

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

44,52,518/- which is an escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, this is a fit case for issuing notice u/s. 148.” 14. From the above reasons recorded, it is vivid that there is nothing mentioned about share capital and share premium. Thus, assessment was not reopened to examine the issue

SHANKARLAL C SHAH,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1359 & 1481/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shankarlal C. Shah, The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. 199-201, Vishal Nagar Society, Surat. Udhna, Magdalla Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeups4161E The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Manish Kashiram Patel, Surat. 15-16, Vanita Residency, Althan Canal Road, Althan, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp5085E (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Appellant)

44,00,000/- per bigha for 12.78 bigha is true and hence the cost of purchase is to be taken Rs.18,40,32,000/- and not Rs.l5,00,00,000/- as claimed by the Munjani Brothers on the basis of noting on the back side of the document without signature of purchasing party. 5. Further my contention about the purchase

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, SURAT vs. SHRI MANISH KASHIRAM PATEL,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1359 & 1481/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shankarlal C. Shah, The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. 199-201, Vishal Nagar Society, Surat. Udhna, Magdalla Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeups4161E The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Manish Kashiram Patel, Surat. 15-16, Vanita Residency, Althan Canal Road, Althan, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp5085E (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Appellant)

44,00,000/- per bigha for 12.78 bigha is true and hence the cost of purchase is to be taken Rs.18,40,32,000/- and not Rs.l5,00,00,000/- as claimed by the Munjani Brothers on the basis of noting on the back side of the document without signature of purchasing party. 5. Further my contention about the purchase

NYA INTERNATIONAL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.57/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Nya International, Vs. The Pcit-1, Unit No.360, Plot No.239, Sez, Gidc Surat. Sachin, Suarat – 394230. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M

reassessment proceedings were initiated have not been fulfilled and therefore the ld. PCIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 16. About claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Act to the tune of Rs.87,21,44

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

section 147/148 of Income Tax Act,1961 for the assessment year 1994-95 was dismissed as not pressed by the ld. counsel of the assessee at the time of hearing before Tribunal. Therefore, the same has been stood as dismissed as not passed, and thus, only remaining three ground No. (II), (III) & (IV) of appeals which were common with each

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

section 147/148 of Income Tax Act,1961 for the assessment year 1994-95 was dismissed as not pressed by the ld. counsel of the assessee at the time of hearing before Tribunal. Therefore, the same has been stood as dismissed as not passed, and thus, only remaining three ground No. (II), (III) & (IV) of appeals which were common with each

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

section 147/148 of Income Tax Act,1961 for the assessment year 1994-95 was dismissed as not pressed by the ld. counsel of the assessee at the time of hearing before Tribunal. Therefore, the same has been stood as dismissed as not passed, and thus, only remaining three ground No. (II), (III) & (IV) of appeals which were common with each

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

section 147/148 of Income Tax Act,1961 for the assessment year 1994-95 was dismissed as not pressed by the ld. counsel of the assessee at the time of hearing before Tribunal. Therefore, the same has been stood as dismissed as not passed, and thus, only remaining three ground No. (II), (III) & (IV) of appeals which were common with each

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

44,26,328/-\n(being 50% of Rs.2,88,52,656/-) as profit element of on-money receipts\nwithout considering that the said plots were not sold to the parties\nmentioned in the loose papers.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject,\nthe learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming addition

M/S. PATEL AMBALAL HARGOVANDAS & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

section 148 had observed that the addition IT(SS)A.49 & 86/SRT/2022 & ITA.185/SRT/2022 Ashish K. Koshiya, Rasikbhai N. Patel & Patel A. Hargovandas & Co. was being made on protective measure. It is in the aforesaid background of fact, question of validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. 24. The Tribunal firstly explained the concept

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

THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. LANTECH TECHNOLOGIES,, SILVASSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing)

44,076/- to the assessee. ITA 1282/AHD/2017/AY.2008-09 M/s. Lantech Technologies ii) On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in following the decision of tribunal only, even though in A.Y.2007-08 the Id. CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowance and which has been ignored and not mentioned /discussed in present order

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

44,77,173 Land Filling- II 46,36,303 Incinerator 84,07,358 Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. Vs DCIT Total 1,75,20,834 33. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order allowed deduction under section 80IA in respect of Land Fill I, Land Fill II and Incinerator project by treating the said undertakings as a composite undertaking

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ACIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

44,77,173 Land Filling- II 46,36,303 Incinerator 84,07,358 Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. Vs DCIT Total 1,75,20,834 33. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order allowed deduction under section 80IA in respect of Land Fill I, Land Fill II and Incinerator project by treating the said undertakings as a composite undertaking