BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

section 68 of the Act.” 5. Now, we shall take, one by one, these concise and summarize grounds of appeals. 6. Common ground no.1 is reproduced below for ready reference and adjudication: “1

KIRTIPRADA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 is prospective and applicable only from assessment year 2013-14. With this background, now we shall proceed to examine in the assessee`s case under consideration, whether assessee has discharged his onus to prove, prima facie, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and share premium received by it from share subscribers companies

SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

5. During the penalty proceedings, the assessing officer held that neither at the time of assessment proceedings nor at the time of penalty proceedings, the assessee could prove that there was no concealment. The Ld. CIT(A),Valsad has also confirmed the addition of Rs.1,43,622/-, and Rs.15,91,100/- made by the Assessing Officer. In these circumstances

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

5. During the penalty proceedings, the assessing officer held that neither at the time of assessment proceedings nor at the time of penalty proceedings, the assessee could prove that there was no concealment. The Ld. CIT(A),Valsad has also confirmed the addition of Rs.1,43,622/-, and Rs.15,91,100/- made by the Assessing Officer. In these circumstances

SHRI SABBIRBHAI DAWOODBHAI SHAIKH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Sabbirbhai Dawoodbhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shaikh, 3(1)(4), Anavil Business Vs 7/4539, Galemandi, Centre, Adajan, Surat- Lakkad Kot, 395009 Surat Pan : Aeqps 5688 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 139(1). Due date for filing of return of income for assessment year 2011-12 was 31.07.2010. Accordingly, the claim of exemption to the extent of Rs.14,94,166/- was disallowed and the same was added to the income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the reopening as well as in making addition in the assessment, the assessee

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned penalty order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). We find that assessee sold the property to M/s Shradha Developers for the sales consideration of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- but the capital gain was not shown in the return of income. The assessee had admitted

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68. Now we take ITA No. 1474/Ahd/2017 for the A.Y 2009-10 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 18/02/2016. 69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68. Now we take ITA No. 1474/Ahd/2017 for the A.Y 2009-10 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 18/02/2016. 69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68. Now we take ITA No. 1474/Ahd/2017 for the A.Y 2009-10 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 18/02/2016. 69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68. Now we take ITA No. 1474/Ahd/2017 for the A.Y 2009-10 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 18/02/2016. 69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68. Now we take ITA No. 1474/Ahd/2017 for the A.Y 2009-10 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 18/02/2016. 69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68. Now we take ITA No. 1474/Ahd/2017 for the A.Y 2009-10 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 18/02/2016. 69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68. Now we take ITA No. 1474/Ahd/2017 for the A.Y 2009-10 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 18/02/2016. 69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68. Now we take ITA No. 1474/Ahd/2017 for the A.Y 2009-10 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 18/02/2016. 69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology

SHRI RAJENDRABHAI RAMANLAL DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

5 Rajendrabhai R Desai the basis of aforesaid observation, the ld CIT(A) held that the addition of Rs. 16.60 lakh is result of misappropriation of fact and cannot be upheld fully. The ld CIT(A) upheld that addition to the extent of Rs.5.00 lakhs only thereby deleted the substantial addition of Rs. 11.60 lakhs. Further aggrieved assessee has filed

SAMIR S MEHTA,MAHARASHTRA vs. CIT (A)-4, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.42/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Samir Shantilal Mehta, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, 1003, 10Th Floor, Sagardeep, South Surat. Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpm5453D (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Vartik Choksi & Biren Shah, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

1. In law & as per facts and in the circumstances of the assessee case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the view of the Id. A.O. relating to the amendment to section 115BBE which was made vide The Taxation Law (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 dated 15.10.2016 while the search operation was conducted

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)

68 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the notice under section 148A(b) had been issued pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal dated 04.05.2022, which is admittedly after 31.03.2022. Therefore, on both counts, the notice issued under section 148A[b] of the Act for the Asst. year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR - 1(3), SURAT vs. RAJGREEN INFRALINK LLP, SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.257 & 375/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rajgreen Infralink Llp Deputy Commissioner Of 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-1(3) Nr. Choksi Wadi, New Rander Road, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Rajgreen Infralink Llp Vs Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Room No. 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Nagar, Nr. Choksi Wadi, Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, New Rander Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395009 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

5. On the submission of assessee, the ld. CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to furnish his obtained remand report. The Assessing Officer furnished his remand report dated 21.02.2023. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer mentioned that assessment order passed under section 143(3) on 22.04.2021, after making addition of Rs.26.46 crores under section 68 on account