THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. This view is well supported by the following decisions of the Supreme Court, jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, jurisdictional Tribunal and other Courts:- (i) CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 0078 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Ambuja Ginning Pressing & Oil Co. (P) Ltd. 332 ITR 0434 (Guj) ITA No.1991/Ahd/2016 and 715/Ahd/2017

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. This view is well supported by the following decisions of the Supreme Court, jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, jurisdictional Tribunal and other Courts:- (i) CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 0078 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Ambuja Ginning Pressing & Oil Co. (P) Ltd. 332 ITR 0434 (Guj) ITA No.1991/Ahd/2016 and 715/Ahd/2017

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

cash credits without appreciating that the assessee failed to provide PAN, confirmation and even address of the so called customers from whom advances were claimed to be received. 3. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Valsad may be set aside and that of assessing officer may be restored to the above extent

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

cash credits without appreciating that the assessee failed to provide PAN, confirmation and even address of the so called customers from whom advances were claimed to be received. 3. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Valsad may be set aside and that of assessing officer may be restored to the above extent

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

unexplained cash credit was made. The case book i.e. books of account was rejected without invoking Section 145 of the Act. For making addition under Section 68, maintenance of books of account is compulsory and any sum found to be credited and the name of creditors which remained outstanding is treated as cash credit. In case of assessee, there

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

unexplained cash credit without appreciating the fact that such loans were arranged by the assessee from the entry provider, which was not only accepted by the main persons of the entry providing group before the Income Tax Department but also before the other agencies like Enforcement Directorate. (6) On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

unexplained cash in the demonetization period. The amendment brought in Income Tax Act passed by Lok Sabha on 29/11/2016 as the same was granted assent by the Hon'ble President of India on 15/12/2016 with retrospective effect being an integral part of taxation law in India. 13. Before me, the ld. AR of the assessee has vehemently submitted that

ACIT, CC-3, SURAT vs. SHRI NARESH NEMCHAND SHAH, 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.197/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Cir.-3, Vs. Naresh Nemchand Shah, Surat. Abhishek House, Bh. Jeevan Bharti School, Kadampali Society, Nanpura, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrps 0182 J (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and be added to your total income for A.Y.2012- 13." 17. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee has furnished his reply to the Assessing Officer. The relevant portion of the reply is reproduced below: “4.1 Your Goodself has proposed to make an addition of Rs.13

MADHVI AJITKUMAR RANKA ,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Vs. Acit, 88, Sunder Nagar, Jamalpore, Navsari Circle, Navsari – 396445 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahfpr5791K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

unexplained cash credits and added to her total income u/s.68 of the Act. 9.3 During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had paid interest on borrowed fund to Ajit R. Ranka (HUF) of Rs.2,58,750/- and of ITA No.124/SRT/2025/AY 2017-18 Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka Rs.51,913/- to Kotak Securities without deducting TDS

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

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, hence, these are being considered together. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Return of 7. Income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.5, 14, 26,940/- which was assessed for the year under consideration. The AO finalized the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) on 31.03.2014 by making

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

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

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

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

SHRI AMITKUMAR MATHURDAS KANERIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained income. 18. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the AO was in a possession of AIR information, according to which the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.38,12,997/- in the bank account on various dates. Since, the source of the same is not explained, The AO, therefore made the addition of Rs.38

SMT. JULLIE AMIT KANERIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained income. 18. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the AO was in a possession of AIR information, according to which the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.38,12,997/- in the bank account on various dates. Since, the source of the same is not explained, The AO, therefore made the addition of Rs.38

SMT. JAYABEN MATHURDAS KANERIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained income. 18. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the AO was in a possession of AIR information, according to which the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.38,12,997/- in the bank account on various dates. Since, the source of the same is not explained, The AO, therefore made the addition of Rs.38

SHRI AMITKUMAR MATHURDAS KANERIA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2031 & 2663/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Amitkumar Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7315 J) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1545 & 2029/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt.Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, . Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Adppk 7316 M) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2030/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt.Jullie Amit Kaneria, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 64, Himgiri Bunglows, Ward-3(3), Surat. Near: Rajhans Cinema, Piplod, Dumas Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aizpk 3199 B) अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

unexplained income. 18. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the AO was in a possession of AIR information, according to which the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.38,12,997/- in the bank account on various dates. Since, the source of the same is not explained, The AO, therefore made the addition of Rs.38