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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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 presumed that the trading liability

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)

69C of the Act. The addition made by the Assessing Officer under wrong section of the Income Tax Act, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence addition should be deleted. Another argument of the ld Counsel was that similar commission was allowed in the past in the scrutiny assessment. The assessee had paid the commission

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

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper\nwas not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and\ndespite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating\ndetails/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp\nimaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

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

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper\nwas not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and\ndespite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating\ndetails/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp\nimaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

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

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper\nwas not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and\ndespite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating\ndetails/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp\nimaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

LATE MAHESH RAMANLAL MODI L/H MANISH MAHESH MODI,BHARUCH vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No. VII of appeal raised by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi, A.C.I.T., Through L-H Manish Mahesh Modi, Circle-1, Vs. Near Shakuntal Apartment, Dahej Bharuch. Bypass Road At Nandelav, Bharuch-392001 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adfpm 4030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS of transporter. The Assessing Officer also recorded that due to time constraint in the show cause notice, it was difficult to obtain PAN and address of the creditors. The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee 7 Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi through L/H-Manish Mahesh Modi Vs ACIT has no clarity about the facts of the case on the issue raised

ARJUNSINH HARISINH THAKOR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARDOLI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

69C or 69D whether the income is offered by the assessee in the return of income or assessment is made by Assessing Officer under these Sections. The amendment was brought to plug the loophole of taxing the unexplained cash in demonetized currency. The argument of assessee that the amendment brought by legislation is in contradiction with law and policy

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 assessee submitted that he is engaged in the business of sarees and dress material in the name of “Mahadev Lifestyle”. The business turnover of assessee is more than Rs.10.00 Crore and has shown net profit of Rs.20.63 lakhs. During the year under consideration, the assessee has availed unsecured loan from different persons through cheque. To substantiate such

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURA, SURAT vs. PIPODRA TEXTILE PARK LLP, SURAT

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.795/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Acit, Vs. Pipodra Textile Park Llp, S No.85, Vilol. Lindiad, Tal: Central Circle-3, Mangrol, Surat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasfp8206B (Appellant) (Respondent) ""या"ेप सं /Co No.27/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (A/O Ita No.795/Srt/2024 Pipodra Textile Park Llp Vs. Acit, S No.85, Vilol. Lindiad, Tal: Central Circle-3, Mangrol, Surat– 395 002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasfp 8206 B (Co-Objector) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca राज"वक" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 29.05.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 4, Surat [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2018- 19, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assistant ITA No.795/Srt/2024 & CO 27/SRT/2024 A.Y 18-19 Pipodra Textile Park LLP Commissioner