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

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

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

u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed

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

u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 may be quashed and / or addition made by the assessing officer may please be ed and / or addition made by the assessing officer may please be ed and / or addition made by the assessing officer may please be deleted.” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as emerging from the the facts of the case

BALDEVRAJ JAMMURAM AHUJA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.178/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Baldevraj Jamnuram Ahuja, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(2)(1), Shop No.B/4073, Millenium Tex Surat. Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazpa7998J (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Rushi Parekh, Ar Revenue By : Ms Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/05/2022

u/s 147 as proper & justified. 4. That CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue of non-furnishing of statement of Praveen Jain to assessee and non-giving opportunity of cross examination of Praveen Jain which is in violation of principles of natural justice. ITA.178/SRT/2017/AY.2008-09 Late Baldevraj Jamnuram Ahuja 5. The assessee craves to add, alter, amend, delete/change or modify

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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raymond Woolen Mills vs. ITO (236 ITR 34) held that: “3. In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material

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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raymond Woolen Mills vs. ITO (236 ITR 34) held that: “3. In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material

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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raymond Woolen Mills vs. ITO (236 ITR 34) held that: “3. In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material

JALAJ CREATION PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PINCIPAL CIT-1, SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Jalaj Creation Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, A-2, Shop No.1007, Regent Textile Ward-1(1)(1), Surat. Vs Market, Ring Road, Surat – 395002. Pan : Aaccj 3065 H Applicant Respondent

u/s 263 is also bad and illegal. In the identical facts, The ITAT Delhi has also held that the assessment order which is bad in law and illegal cannot be revised under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. (ITA No.2857/Delhi/2017-M/s. SPJ Hotels (P) Ltd., New Delhi) - Rs.432600/- 3. Because the learned CIT has not considered that

USMAN VALI PATEL,BHARUCH GUJARAT vs. WARD 1(2), INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.183/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Usman Vali Patel, Vs. Ito, A-14 Assd Park, Near Khwaja Ward – 1(2), Township, Bharuch - 392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aykpp8165B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Krutarth Desai, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

reassessment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has not complied with the mandatory requirements of section 143(2) and passed the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 which is bad in law and therefore impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside in the best interest of justice. ITA No.183/SRT/2025/AY.2011-12 Usman Vali