NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT

u/s. 132 of the Act in case of Kuberji Group\non 06.02.2020. The residential premises of Shri Naresh Bisheshwarlal Agrawal\n(assessee herein) was also covered during the search and seizure operation.\nVarious incriminating documents were found and seized, which indicated that\nthe assessee had not disclosed his true and correct income in the return of\nincome. After hearing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

u/s 69B towards purchase of land at block No.7 and 287\nKumbharia, (ii) Rs.5,94,15,000/- u/s 69A on account of on-money receipt of\nKuberji Crown and (iii) Rs.55,00,000/- u/s 69B for unaccounted payment for land\nat plot No. 224 at Kumbharia.\n44.1 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated wrongly without considering the facts on the record. The CIT(A) forwarded submission of assessee to AO and obtained the remand report, which is at para 8.11 of the appellate order. He noted that AO issued notice as per the PAN data base and address of the bank for KYC verification. The CIT(A) also noticed

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated wrongly without considering the facts on the record. The CIT(A) forwarded submission of assessee to AO and obtained the remand report, which is at para 8.11 of the appellate order. He noted that AO issued notice as per the PAN data base and address of the bank for KYC verification. The CIT(A) also noticed

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated wrongly without considering the facts on the record. The CIT(A) forwarded submission of assessee to AO and obtained the remand report, which is at para 8.11 of the appellate order. He noted that AO issued notice as per the PAN data base and address of the bank for KYC verification. The CIT(A) also noticed

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated wrongly without considering the facts on the record. The CIT(A) forwarded submission of assessee to AO and obtained the remand report, which is at para 8.11 of the appellate order. He noted that AO issued notice as per the PAN data base and address of the bank for KYC verification. The CIT(A) also noticed

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated wrongly without considering the facts on the record. The CIT(A) forwarded submission of assessee to AO and obtained the remand report, which is at para 8.11 of the appellate order. He noted that AO issued notice as per the PAN data base and address of the bank for KYC verification. The CIT(A) also noticed

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated wrongly without considering the facts on the record. The CIT(A) forwarded submission of assessee to AO and obtained the remand report, which is at para 8.11 of the appellate order. He noted that AO issued notice as per the PAN data base and address of the bank for KYC verification. The CIT(A) also noticed

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated wrongly without considering the facts on the record. The CIT(A) forwarded submission of assessee to AO and obtained the remand report, which is at para 8.11 of the appellate order. He noted that AO issued notice as per the PAN data base and address of the bank for KYC verification. The CIT(A) also noticed

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated wrongly without considering the facts on the record. The CIT(A) forwarded submission of assessee to AO and obtained the remand report, which is at para 8.11 of the appellate order. He noted that AO issued notice as per the PAN data base and address of the bank for KYC verification. The CIT(A) also noticed

HARSHADRAY MANIBHAI VASHI,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.309/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Harshadray M. Vashi, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2, Via, Maroli Bazar, Jalapore, Navsari. Navsari-396436. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akjpv1648J (Revenue) (Assessee) Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2022 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

reassessment order which is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the action of Assessing Officer by sustaining the addition of Rs.6,57,417/- out of total addition of Rs.9,08,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposits

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RAJESHBHAI MAGANBHAI AHIR, SURAT

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

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

u/s 698 of the I.T Act in contravention to the provision of section 2920 of the IT Act 1961 and without appreciating the facts that the addition had been made on the basis of incriminating details/documents recovered during the survey proceedings. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

reassessed on 19.02.2016 for ASST. Year 2011-12 by the Department and a total addition of Rs.92,03,181/- had been made by the Department on account of unexplained investment and unexplained income, ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers against which your assessee did not prefer

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.

reassessed on 19.02.2016 for ASST. Year 2011-12 by the Department and a total addition of Rs.92,03,181/- had been made by the Department on account of unexplained investment and unexplained income, ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers against which your assessee did not prefer

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.

reassessed on 19.02.2016 for ASST. Year 2011-12 by the Department and a total addition of Rs.92,03,181/- had been made by the Department on account of unexplained investment and unexplained income, ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers against which your assessee did not prefer

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.

reassessed on 19.02.2016 for ASST. Year 2011-12 by the Department and a total addition of Rs.92,03,181/- had been made by the Department on account of unexplained investment and unexplained income, ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers against which your assessee did not prefer

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

reassessed on 19.02.2016 for ASST. Year 2011-12 by the Department and a total addition of Rs.92,03,181/- had been made by the Department on account of unexplained investment and unexplained income, ITA Nos.284 to 286, 318 to 320/SRT/2022 & CO No.12 to 14/SRT/2022 M/s. M. Poonam Developers LLP & M. Poonam Developers against which your assessee did not prefer