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.

5% of Rs.30,72,16,240/-, 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

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.

5% of Rs.30,72,16,240/-, 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

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

5) of that section, on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, in the case of the assessee; or\n(iii) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned under section 132 or section 132A in case

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

253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an\naffidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In\nthe affidavit, the assessee stated that CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the\nAct on 15.09.2023. However, the assessee filed the appeal on 29.06.2024.\nTherefore, there is a delay of 63 days. The assessee submitted

RADHA MADHAV ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARK,VALSAD vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 15.09.2023. However, the assessee filed the appeal on 29.06.2024. Therefore, there is a delay of 63 days. The assessee submitted

RADHA MADHAV ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARK,VAPI vs. ACIT, CENTARL CIRCLE-1, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 15.09.2023. However, the assessee filed the appeal on 29.06.2024. Therefore, there is a delay of 63 days. The assessee submitted

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee stated that CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 15.09.2023. However, the assessee filed the appeal on 29.06.2024. Therefore, there is a delay of 63 days. The assessee submitted

JIGNESHKUMAR S. MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

MADHUBEN DILIPBHAI MODI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

GAMANLAL NANUBHAI MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

SANMUKHLAL NANUBHAI MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

NITIN KUMAR GAMANLAL MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

VIJAYKUMAR GAMANLAL MODI, HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

ANILKUMAR GAMANLAL MODI, HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

NIKUNJKUMAR D. MODI HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 wherein long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 10,92,200/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. The assessee, along with co-owners, had sold a piece of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 97,35,000/-. Given that the Stamp Duty Authority has adopted the Jantri Value

NARPATSINH PRABHATSINH SOLANKI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the is allowed for statistical purposes

5) The failure of the Assessing officer in reassessment proceedings, to issue\nnotice u/s 143(2) of the Act prior to finalising the reassessment order cannot\nbe condoned by referring to section 292BB of the Act.\n(6) When the assessee had filed return of income, it is mandatory to issue\nnotice u/s 143(2) of the Act before finalising

M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

u/s. 245E of the Act to revive the abated years. 13. 07-06-2016: Based on current circumstances and hearing held on 03-06-2016, M/s. Bhuta Shah & Co LLP, the representative advised that appeal should be filed for all abated years as Hon'ble members of Settlement Commission had declined to revive all abated years. We are enclosing herewith

M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

u/s. 245E of the Act to revive the abated years. 13. 07-06-2016: Based on current circumstances and hearing held on 03-06-2016, M/s. Bhuta Shah & Co LLP, the representative advised that appeal should be filed for all abated years as Hon'ble members of Settlement Commission had declined to revive all abated years. We are enclosing herewith