ITO, WARD-3(3)(3), SURAT vs. M/S. M D HOUSE BUILD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

133(6) of the Act. The 7 M/s M.D. House Build Assessing Officer presumed that the trading liability as in- genuine cash credit. The assessee submitted that they have furnished complete names, addresses, PAN, opening balance, total purchases/ contractual, total payments and outstanding as on 31.03.2014. Thus, it was not a case of non-furnishing details of information of sundry

M/S KASHIRAM ATMARAM,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.236/Srt/2022 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) Kashiram Atmaram Deputy Commissioner Of 3/1949, Siddhi Sheri, Income-Tax, Vs Salabatpura, Surat-395003 Central Circle-(1)(1)(1), Pan No. Aadfk 2670 H Room No.108, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

TDS was deducted from the interest payment, Form 16A 4 M/s Kashiram Atmaram shows the PAN and addresses of the lenders. During the personal hearing before Assessing Officer, the assessee requested before Assessing Officer to verify the transaction by issuing summons under section 131 or notices under section 133

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

TDS made on such interest and the amount received and repaid during the year. Such details are recorded by ld CITA) at page No. 18 & 19 of his order. The assessee also stated that the assessing officer considered only peak of all transaction and made addition of Rs. 4.15 Crore in AY 2010-11 and Rs. 2.14 Crore

SHRI PRAKASHBHAI HARIBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Prakashbhai Haribhai Ahir, The Income Tax Officer, 23, Ashish Society, Ward-1(3)(8), Surat. Vs B/H.Navyug College, Rander Road, Surat. Pan: Abfpa 9237 R Appellant Respondent

TDS of Rs.63,948/-. The assessee has not offered the said commission in the computation of income. On confronting the issued the assessee contended that he had let out a premise situated at Adajan to Dhru Motors Private Limited on rent. The AO in order to verify the claim of assessee, issued notice under section 133

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

TDS had also been duly deducted by assessee and paid also. Sir when AO has sent notices under section 133

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

TDS in short) and the closing balance as on 31.03.2018 and complete pdf folder consisting of duly signed of confirmation of ITR, relevant bank statement of the depositors were furnished. On furnishing such details, the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry of his own either issuing notice under section 133

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

TDS in short) and the closing balance as on 31.03.2018 and complete pdf folder consisting of duly signed of confirmation of ITR, relevant bank statement of the depositors were furnished. On furnishing such details, the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry of his own either issuing notice under section 133

SAIKRUPA CORPORATION,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(9), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Saikrupa Corporation, I.T.O., C-502, Prasang Residency, Opp Ward 1(3)(9), Vs. Green Avenue, L.P. Savani Road, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-395007. Pan No. Abkfs 6228 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS was deducted on the expenses. The Assessing Officer made addition only on the ground that the evidences of transportation of the goods was not furnished. The Assessing Officer treated the purchases as bogus on the limited ground that the notice under Section 133

I.T.O.WARD -2(1)(4), SURAT vs. VENUS UPCOUNTRY TRADING PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 388/Srt/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Venus Upcountry Trading Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 6-1181, Dalia Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccv7694N

133(6) of the Act only to six parties out of which one party has confirmed the transaction. The five parties did not confirm the transaction and total purchases made from these five parties was Rs.49,18,418/-, therefore Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 25% of Rs.49,18,418/- which comes to Rs.12

CHIRAGBHAI S. GADHIYA,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS form was furnished. On the basis of aforesaid submission, the assessee requested to delete the addition under Section 68 of the Act of Rs. 24,91,375/-. 4. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee held that the assessee claimed that he has received cash from various parties, however, no documentary evidence was furnished before

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S MBC INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED, VAPI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Mbc Infra Space Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Vs Vapi Circle, Vapi. 202, Second Floor, Centre Point, N.H. No. 8, Mahavir Nagar, Vapi. Pan: Aahcm8684N Respondent/ Assessee Appellant/ Revenue

TDS at the time of bill raised and also at the time of payment made on certain bills. The Assessing Officer further recorded that the assessee failed to produce such bills and confirmation of the parties. 4. In order to verify the transaction the Assessing Officer issued noticed under section 133

SHRI LALCHAND DHARIWAL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2623/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Lalchand P. Dhariwal, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S. Adinath Textile , Ward- 1(2)(3) Surat O-21-23 Bombay Market Umarwada Surat Pan: Aatpd 0682 Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

133(6), which is discernible from Page No. 5 of assessment order. Shri Kamlesh L Dhariwal was having capital of Rs.20, 27, 632 as on 31. 03. 2012 out of which loan of Rs. 18,56,000 was given to the assessee. It is noticed that Shri Kamlesh Dhariwal was having sufficient cash in hand out of cash was deposited

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J B SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.140/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2023

133(6) of the Act. The assessing officer chose not to do any further enquiry, but made impugned addition of Rs.68,50,000/- (Rs.98,50,000 - 30,00,000) under section 68 of the Act. 26. On appeal, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition, therefore Revenue is in appeal before us. Learned DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. VALENCIA CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) A.C.I.T. M/S Valencia Corporation, Central Circle-4, S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu-Rundh Vs. Surat. Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant Respondednt C.O. No. 17/Srt/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 257/Srt/2022)(Ay: 2016-17) M/S Valencia Corporation, A.C.I.T. S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu- Central Circle-4, Vs. Rundh Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Surat. Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant/Objector Respondednt

TDS was deducted in concern FYs in which bills were raised by the works contractor (i.e. Konark Infratech). Also, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered the requirements of section 41(1) of the Act, and onus cast upon the assessing officer to prove that conditions of section 41(1) of the Act have to be fulfilled to treat the liability

RAVINDRANTH J. MISHRA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

133(6) to Paras Pumps Pvt. Ltd., wherein it was confirmed that assessee performed the duty (contractual obligation) and all payments were made to him. 6. The Assessing Officer further noted that several notices issued to the assessee and on the basis of statement reflected in Form 26AS about contractual payments of Rs.8,96,080/-. The Assessing Officer made addition

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

133(6) of the Act and that the parties had confirmed the transactions. The assessee also argued that Santosh Singh Hukam Singh Karnawat (Individual) vs. ITO Asst. Year – 2012-13 - 3– the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain had been retracted. The CIT(A), however, held that the assessee failed to produce the suppliers or provide current addresses for verification

KSHITIJ MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

133(6) of the Act, all the parties replied to the Assessing Officer with documentary evidences, therefore genuineness of the parties should not be doubted. It was also argued that both the parties are the agent of the assessee and not the agent of the persons from whom the assessee received the revenue. The assessee has paid the commission after

RASIKLAL BAVCHANDBHAI AKBARI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rasiklal Bavchandbhai Akbari, I.T.O., 307, Santkrupa Apartment, Ward-3(3)(4), Vs. Matru Shakti Road, Kapodara Surat. Char Rasta, Surat, Gujarat- 395006. Pan No. Agmpa 6060 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS return has not been revised till date so it belongs to assessee. 6. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. On considering the submissions, I find that the assessee right from the beginning contended that the mismatch in the total turnover as shown by assessee