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

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS deducted on interest payment and the proof of repayment. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction of loan as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS deducted on interest payment and the proof of repayment. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction of loan as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS deducted on interest payment and the proof of repayment. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction of loan as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS deducted on interest payment and the proof of repayment. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction of loan as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

section 68 of the Act by the AO. Au contraire, the learned counsel for the assessee referred para 12. No. 8.2 (vii) at Page No. 10 of assessment order and submitted that DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat Vs. Kejriwal Industries Ltd.,/ITA No.1509/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 Page 26 of 49 the AO has observed that the ACIT-TDS

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

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 the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. On the other hand

SHRI BALAJI J BHAGNURE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Balaji J. Bhagnure Income Tax Officer, 98, Santkrupa Society, In Ward-2(3)(1) Aayakar Vs Lane Of Mahadev Mandir, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Godadara Devadh Road, Surat-395001 Godadara, Surat-394210 Pan No: Alkpb 8794 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 27.12.2022 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [For Short To As “Nfac/ Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 26.07.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 11.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Reopening Assessment By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The I.T. Act 1961. Sh. Balaji J Bhagnure 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The I.T. Act.

TDS was made @ 10% under section 194C. The receipt is nominal and the income of assessee was below taxable limit. Thus, the issuance of notice under section 148 was not valid. 4. For non-compliance of notice of Assessing Officer, the assessee explained that assessee (he) is a small person and is not well versed with income tax matters. Therefore

BSAS INFOTECH LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 68 of the Act, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has after appreciation of evidence placed on record by the assessee during the course of appeal proceedings has deleted the additions. During appeal, the assessee was able to produce the confirmation from the creditors in support of genuineness of the transaction, loan agreement with

BSAS INFOTECH LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 68 of the Act, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has after appreciation of evidence placed on record by the assessee during the course of appeal proceedings has deleted the additions. During appeal, the assessee was able to produce the confirmation from the creditors in support of genuineness of the transaction, loan agreement with

BSAS INFORTECH LIMITED, SURAT,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 68 of the Act, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has after appreciation of evidence placed on record by the assessee during the course of appeal proceedings has deleted the additions. During appeal, the assessee was able to produce the confirmation from the creditors in support of genuineness of the transaction, loan agreement with

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 and not under section 69C of the Act thereby found genuine real and direct expenses though the books of assessee were not rejected. The Assessing Officer accepted the liability as a trading result because some of the parties have not responded to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. The 7 M/s M.D. House Build Assessing Officer

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

M/S. HIREN SILK MILLS,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2271/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Hiren Silk Mills, V The Income Tax Officer, 6625/1, Road No.66, A/6, Gidc, S Ward-1(2)(2), Surat. Sachin, Surat. . [Pan: Aadfh 5929 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Stay Petition No.01/Srt/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2271/Ahd/2016) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Hiren Silk Mills, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Surat. 6625/1, Road No.66, A/6, Gidc, S Sachin, Surat. . [Pan: Aadfh 5929 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 68 - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]. 9. On the other hand, the ld.Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the orders of Revenue Authorities. 10. We have heard both the Counsels and perused the material placed on records, judgments cited by the parties as well as orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. From the records, we noticed that the ld.AO

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68 as unexplained credit amounts to double taxation of the same income. The said situation has been upheld in latest Apex Court Judgment of Montage Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 100 (SC) and other decisions. The Honorable CIT(A) has also relied on the said decisions as mentioned in last para of the Appellate order challenged by the revenue

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68 as unexplained credit amounts to double taxation of the same income. The said situation has been upheld in latest Apex Court Judgment of Montage Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 100 (SC) and other decisions. The Honorable CIT(A) has also relied on the said decisions as mentioned in last para of the Appellate order challenged by the revenue

AMITKUMAR AGRAWAL,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT

In the result, ground No.4 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 25/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Amitkumar Agrawal Assistant Commissioner Of Income- I-2474-75, Millennium Textile Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat, बनाम Market, Ring Road, Room No.213, 2Nd Floor, Vs Surat-395 002 Aaykar Bhavan, Opp. [Pan : Ajtpa 4052 E] New Civil Hospital, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 68, the onus shifts on the revenue/ Assessing Officer (AO) to make further investigation. To disprove such evidence, the 6 Amitkumar Agrawal AO should verify the genuineness of transaction from the Income-tax Returns from lenders. The AO and ld. CIT(A) have not discussed anything about the payment of interest made after deducting TDS

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

68' - Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed 338/SRT/2023/AY.2015-16 Vitrag Prints addition - On instant appeal, it was seen that Assessing Officer went to root of issue; made inquiries and brought on record that brought forward alleged sundry creditors and current year's creditors were not genuine - Further, assessee never tried to reconcile difference of brought forward balances nor produced any bills of purchase