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

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. Grounds of appeal raised in the appeal against the additions/disallowances made in the assessment order passed under section 14(3) which continue in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 6. On the facts

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. Grounds of appeal raised in the appeal against the additions/disallowances made in the assessment order passed under section 14(3) which continue in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 6. On the facts

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ADDL.CIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, 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. Grounds of appeal raised in the appeal against the additions/disallowances made in the assessment order passed under section 14(3) which continue in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 6. On the facts

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE DY.CIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, 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. Grounds of appeal raised in the appeal against the additions/disallowances made in the assessment order passed under section 14(3) which continue in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 6. On the facts

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

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. Grounds of appeal raised in the appeal against the additions/disallowances made in the assessment order passed under section 14(3) which continue in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 6. On the facts

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

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. Grounds of appeal raised in the appeal against the additions/disallowances made in the assessment order passed under section 14(3) which continue in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 6. On the facts

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.

72,16,240/-, which comes to Rs.1,53,60,812/-. 16. Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, prayed the Bench that since the assessee has raised the technical ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 239 & 304/SRT/2019 & 122 & 124/SRT/2020 Ravjibhai Bechabhai Dhameliya of the Act, which goes to the root

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.

72,16,240/-, which comes to Rs.1,53,60,812/-. 16. Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, prayed the Bench that since the assessee has raised the technical ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 239 & 304/SRT/2019 & 122 & 124/SRT/2020 Ravjibhai Bechabhai Dhameliya of the Act, which goes to the root

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.

72,16,240/-, which comes to Rs.1,53,60,812/-. 16. Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, prayed the Bench that since the assessee has raised the technical ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 239 & 304/SRT/2019 & 122 & 124/SRT/2020 Ravjibhai Bechabhai Dhameliya of the Act, which goes to the root

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.

72,16,240/-, which comes to Rs.1,53,60,812/-. 16. Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, prayed the Bench that since the assessee has raised the technical ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 239 & 304/SRT/2019 & 122 & 124/SRT/2020 Ravjibhai Bechabhai Dhameliya of the Act, which goes to the root

MARUDHAR DIAMOND PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

72,422/- @ 2% of sales made to disputed parties of Rs.4,86,21,078/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before

SAFFRON GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

72,422/- @ 2% of sales made to disputed parties of Rs.4,86,21,078/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before

ANTIQUE EXIM PVT LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

72,422/- @ 2% of sales made to disputed parties of Rs.4,86,21,078/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-3, SURAT vs. M/S. ANTIQUE EXIM PVT. LTD., , SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

72,422/- @ 2% of sales made to disputed parties of Rs.4,86,21,078/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT vs. M/S. SAFFRON GEMS PVT. LTD., , SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

72,422/- @ 2% of sales made to disputed parties of Rs.4,86,21,078/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. MARUDHAR DIAMOND PVT LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

72,422/- @ 2% of sales made to disputed parties of Rs.4,86,21,078/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before

NOBAL JEWELS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

72,422/- @ 2% of sales made to disputed parties of Rs.4,86,21,078/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before

ASST. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, SURAT vs. M/S. NOBAL JEWELS PVT. LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

72,422/- @ 2% of sales made to disputed parties of Rs.4,86,21,078/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before

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.

72,02,368. In view of these facts and circumstances the Ground No.4 to 6 of appeal are partly allowed.” 6.Also in the case of CIT vs. Neo Formulations Pvt. Ltd. reported vide 363 ITR 322, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held as, “This argument has two difficulties. Firstly, the Assessing Officer himself, as noted above, has recorded