RAIYANI BROTHERS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.222-224/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08,2008-09 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Raiyani Brothers The Income Tax Officer, V 9, Dumaswala Compound, Ward-3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Haribaug, Varachha Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Assessee) (Revenue)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Therefore, ld Counsel pleads that it reflects an arbitrary exercise of the powers conferred to assessing officer under section 147 of the Act, which is not acceptable.Therefore, ld Counsel submits that order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is not valid as the reasons recorded

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARIVS.SHRI KHEMCHANDBHAI KUNGMAL THARWANI,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2867-2869/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shri Rajesh Khemchand Tharwani, Tax, Navsari Circle, Room L/H Lt. Shri Khemchandbhai Vs. No./302, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Kungmal Tharwani, Prop. Of K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Gidc, Charpool Police Chowki, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3135/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Shri Khemchand Kangumal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tharwani, By L/R Rajesh Tax, Navsari Circle, Room No./302, Vs. Khemchand Tharwani, Prop. Of M/S Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Charpool K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Police Chowki, Lunsikui, Gidc, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent)

150/- is not emanating from any evidence on record found during survey but it is the difference pointed out by the DVO in his valuation report. The report of DVO is not an information for re-opening assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The AO has to apply his mind to the information if any collected and must form

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARIVS.SHRI KHEMCHANDBHAI KUNGMAL THARWANI,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2867-2869/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shri Rajesh Khemchand Tharwani, Tax, Navsari Circle, Room L/H Lt. Shri Khemchandbhai Vs. No./302, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Kungmal Tharwani, Prop. Of K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Gidc, Charpool Police Chowki, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3135/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Shri Khemchand Kangumal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tharwani, By L/R Rajesh Tax, Navsari Circle, Room No./302, Vs. Khemchand Tharwani, Prop. Of M/S Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Charpool K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Police Chowki, Lunsikui, Gidc, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent)

150/- is not emanating from any evidence on record found during survey but it is the difference pointed out by the DVO in his valuation report. The report of DVO is not an information for re-opening assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The AO has to apply his mind to the information if any collected and must form

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARIVS.SHRI KHEMCHANDBHAI KUNGMAL THARWANI,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2867-2869/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shri Rajesh Khemchand Tharwani, Tax, Navsari Circle, Room L/H Lt. Shri Khemchandbhai Vs. No./302, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Kungmal Tharwani, Prop. Of K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Gidc, Charpool Police Chowki, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3135/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Shri Khemchand Kangumal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tharwani, By L/R Rajesh Tax, Navsari Circle, Room No./302, Vs. Khemchand Tharwani, Prop. Of M/S Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Charpool K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Police Chowki, Lunsikui, Gidc, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent)

150/- is not emanating from any evidence on record found during survey but it is the difference pointed out by the DVO in his valuation report. The report of DVO is not an information for re-opening assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The AO has to apply his mind to the information if any collected and must form

KHEMCHAND KANGUMAL THARWANI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2867-2869/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shri Rajesh Khemchand Tharwani, Tax, Navsari Circle, Room L/H Lt. Shri Khemchandbhai Vs. No./302, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Kungmal Tharwani, Prop. Of K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Gidc, Charpool Police Chowki, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3135/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Shri Khemchand Kangumal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tharwani, By L/R Rajesh Tax, Navsari Circle, Room No./302, Vs. Khemchand Tharwani, Prop. Of M/S Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Charpool K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Police Chowki, Lunsikui, Gidc, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent)

150/- is not emanating from any evidence on record found during survey but it is the difference pointed out by the DVO in his valuation report. The report of DVO is not an information for re-opening assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The AO has to apply his mind to the information if any collected and must form

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MAHAVEER SHANTILAL JAIN, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

u/s 143 (3) of the Act and this defect can not be cured by taking recourse to the provisions of section 292 BB of the Act. 19. In view of the above, we hold that the AO had no valid jurisdiction to pass the assessment order and the very foundation of the assessment proceedings is bad in law. Hence, these

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT vs. SHRI CHTURBHAI KARSHANBHAI VASANI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.321/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Chaturbhai Karshanbhai Vasani Ward-3(3)(5),Surat. (Afipv 9766 K), A-75, Matrushakti Society,-A, Punagam, L.H. Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afipv9766K (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 147 and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03,2016. The Re-opened assessment was completed on 24.11.2016 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act determining total income at Rs.1,54,94,960/- after making addition of Rs. 1,53,41,618/- being assessee's share in on-money received from purchasers of the property

M/S. SAMRIDDHI CORPORATION,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-1(2),, SURAT

In the result, cross appeals of Revenue as well as Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Samruddhi Corporation, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Megh Dhwani Complex, Income Tax, Circle-1(2), City Light Road, Surat – 395007. Surat. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Samruddhi Corporation, Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat. Megh Dhwani Complex, City Light Road, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) of the Act may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The appellant was provided the copy of the reasons for reopening by the AO. The appellant vide his letter dated. 10.02,2015 raised objections on the reopening of the assessment which were duly disposed

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. SAMRUDDHI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, cross appeals of Revenue as well as Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Samruddhi Corporation, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Megh Dhwani Complex, Income Tax, Circle-1(2), City Light Road, Surat – 395007. Surat. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Samruddhi Corporation, Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat. Megh Dhwani Complex, City Light Road, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) of the Act may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The appellant was provided the copy of the reasons for reopening by the AO. The appellant vide his letter dated. 10.02,2015 raised objections on the reopening of the assessment which were duly disposed

SANJAYKUMAR DEVKISHAN PANWAR,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

147 of the Act and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I T Act. I have perused the submission of the AR, Remand Report and considered verbal arguments. It is seen from the records that the AO had received report from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT, SURAT vs. SANJAYKUMAR DEVKISHAN PANWAR,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

147 of the Act and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I T Act. I have perused the submission of the AR, Remand Report and considered verbal arguments. It is seen from the records that the AO had received report from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, which indicated that the appellant was beneficiary of accommodation entry operators. The said accommodation

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

147 and notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued. Thereafter, the assessment was completed determining income at Rs. 73,63,948/- by making addition of Rs. 39,42,558/- being 4% of Rs. 9,85,63,946/- as alleged unaccounted job work charges. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

147 and notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued. Thereafter, the assessment was completed determining income at Rs. 73,63,948/- by making addition of Rs. 39,42,558/- being 4% of Rs. 9,85,63,946/- as alleged unaccounted job work charges. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

147 and notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued. Thereafter, the assessment was completed determining income at Rs. 73,63,948/- by making addition of Rs. 39,42,558/- being 4% of Rs. 9,85,63,946/- as alleged unaccounted job work charges. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before

SHRI ARVINDBHAI LALLUBHAI LAKHANKIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.962/Ahd/2016; "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Arvindbhai Lallubhai V Asst. Commissioner Of Lakhankiya, B-78, Hans Society, S Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aadpl 3819 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

u/s. 143(3) without any failure on the part of appellant. The re-opening be held as time barred. II. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of Assessing Officer without appreciating the law that reference to DVO was made after completion of assessment proceedings. The re-opening should be held

SHREE M.D. INDUSTRIES (NOW KNOWN AS M/S. PARAMESHWAR WEAVES),,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, OSD-4, RANGE-2,, SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shreem.D. Industries Income Tax Officer (Now Know As Osd-4, Vs M/S Parameshwar Weaves) Range-2, Surat D-137, Uma Industrial Estate, Udhna Udhyognagar, Surat Pan : Aapfs 9634 K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

reassessment order needs to be annulled out rightly. 3.On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained partners capital of Rs.1,98,50,000/-. As made by the ITO in the hands of the appellant firm, which is not only factually erroneous but also

MR. ROLHAN SANJAY PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(4), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rohan Sanjay Patel, I.T.O., “Sanket” Bungalow, Ward 1(3)(4), Vs. Near Bungalow No. 122 Of Sarjan Surat. Society, Opposite Science Centre, City Light Road, Surat-395007. Pan No. Ascpp 8025 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 07/06/2022 for the Assessment year (AY) 2014-15 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

HI-TECH MARKETING,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the Ground no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainihi-Tech Marketing, The Income – Tax Officer, 114, Belgium Tower, Old Ward -3(1)(4), Surat Linear Bus Stop, Station Road, Surat – 395 003. Vs Pan : Aabfh5705N Appellant Respondednt

section (u/s) 143(3) of the Act on 12/03/2013. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act. Notice u/s.148 dated 26/03/2015 served upon the assessee. In response to notice u/s.148 dated 26/03/2015, the assessee filed its reply dated 09/04/2015. In reply the assessee contended that return filed on 31/09/2010 may be considered as return in response