SHRIFAL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the IT Act and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30/03/2019. In response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act the assessee filed its return of income on 26/04/2019 declaring total income at Rs.2,09,220/-. The assessee was provided copy of reasons recorded for reopening of case vide letter dated 25/05/2019

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:

147. Even if for a moment we agree with the Id. DR that the protective addition is different from substantive addition and hence the reassessment proceedings be upheld, we find that ultimately the same conclusion will follow if the substantive addition is struck down at a place where it was made. In such a scenario the protective addition will

RITESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI CHOKSI,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

reassessment u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act, making additions aggregating to Rs.21,99,192/- on account of cash deposits treated as unexplained u/s 69

RITESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI CHOKSI,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

reassessment u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act, making additions aggregating to Rs.21,99,192/- on account of cash deposits treated as unexplained u/s 69

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. DEEPESH VISHNU AGARWAL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

u/s 148 was issued beyond the permissible \"surviving period\" and without approval of the correct specified authority, rendering it void in law. The CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment proceedings was found to be without infirmity.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 148", "Section 148A", "Section 149", "Section 151", "Section 115BBE", "Section 69", "Section 69C", "Section 144B", "Section 147

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

69,950/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 2. The Ld CIT, NFAC has erred and was not just proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.20,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 3. PRAYER: 3.1 The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

69,950/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 2. The Ld CIT, NFAC has erred and was not just proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.20,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 3. PRAYER: 3.1 The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

69,950/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 2. The Ld CIT, NFAC has erred and was not just proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.20,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 3. PRAYER: 3.1 The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

69,950/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 2. The Ld CIT, NFAC has erred and was not just proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.20,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 3. PRAYER: 3.1 The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

69,950/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 2. The Ld CIT, NFAC has erred and was not just proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.20,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 3. PRAYER: 3.1 The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

69,950/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 2. The Ld CIT, NFAC has erred and was not just proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.20,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 3. PRAYER: 3.1 The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO,WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

69,950/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 2. The Ld CIT, NFAC has erred and was not just proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.20,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 3. PRAYER: 3.1 The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

69,950/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 2. The Ld CIT, NFAC has erred and was not just proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.20,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act. 3. PRAYER: 3.1 The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed

BHAKTIKISHOREDAS DHARMTANYADASJI SWAMI,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhaktikishoredas I.T.O., Dharmtanyadasji Swami, Ward-1, Vs. Shri Swaminarayan Seva Trust, Vapi. Swaminarayan Gurukul, Gurukul Road, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat India-396191. Pan No. Bmgps 5746 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

69 of IT Act of Rs. 2,40,000/-. 3. Your Appellant craves the leave to add, alter, amend, modify, delete and append any of the grounds of appeal.” Vide application dated 08/05/2023, the assessee has raised following additional ground of appeal: Bhaktikishoredas Dharmtanyadasji Swami Vs ITO “ On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well

SUMITLAL,SURAT vs. ITO, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Sumitlal, Ito 101-B/2, Sanskrut Flats Umra, Aayakar Bhavan, Bharthana, Vs. Surat-395007. Surat-395007 Pan No. Acxpl 1238 Q Appellant Respondent

reassessment ex parte ex parte under sections 147 read with 144 of the Act on 23.10.2017, treating the sections 147 read with 144 of the Act on 23.10.2017, treating the sections 147 read with 144 of the Act on 23.10.2017, treating the sum of ₹22,24,315/ 22,24,315/- representing the investment in mutual representing the investment in mutual

SURESHBHAI RAGHUBHAI THORAT,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-7, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.426/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Sureshbhai Raghubhai Thorat, Vs. The Ito, Siddharth Villa, At Post Ozar, Ward – 7, Mota Pondha B.O., Valsad – Vapi 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acapt3507F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/01/2025

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on the basis of invalid notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. 4) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding, without adjudication, the action of ld. ITO of completing the assessment u/s 144 of the Act in defiance principles of natural justice, equity and fairness

ITO, WARD-2(3)(2), SURAT, SURAT vs. KISHOR BHANUBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts of the case are the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the asst. year 2015-16 declaring taxable income of Rs.3

YOGENDRAKUMAR RAMAVTAR AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Yogendrakumar Ramavtar Ito, Ward-1(2)(5), Agarwal, Surat Current Jurisdiction: 2053-Mahaveer Textile Market, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(1), Ring Road, Textile Area, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Surat-395002. Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aarpa 7623 C Appellant Respondent

69 of the I.T. Act. 4. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed 4. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed 4. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed u/s. 147 may kindly be quashed and/or the u/s. 147 may kindly be quashed and/or the additions additions made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. made