DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT vs. DIVA DIAMONDS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.128/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), 302, Gokul Building, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Srt/2020 [Arising In Ita No.128/Srt/2020] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of 302, Gokul Building, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.313/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Principal Cit-1,Surat 1St 302, Gokul Building, Room No.123, Floor, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus purchases, then it would not mean enhancement of assessment, and just because ld CIT(A) made correction in the section in accordance with the substance discussed in the assessment order does not vitiate the appellate order. For this, reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Navinchandra Mafatlal

SANDHYA DYES & CHEMICALS,,UMBERGAM vs. THE ADDL.CIT, VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3225/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Sandhya Dyes & Vs. The Additional Commissioner Chemicals, Of Income Tax, Plot No. 1703-B, Sarigam, Vapi Range, Vapi. Gidc, Umbergaon, Gujarat. [Pan: Aalfs 5832 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus claim made before Sandhya Dyes & Chemicals Vs. Addl. CIT, Vapi Range, Vapi/I.T.A. No.3225/Ahd/2015/A.Y.:2011-12 Page 12 of 18 them. Therefore, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Lower Authorities. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the contention of the assessee that the transaction under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MAHAVEER SHANTILAL JAIN, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

bogus purchases, observing as follows: “10.1.7 It is further seen that the Honorable Gujarat High Court in the cases decided subsequent to N K Proteins ltd (supra) has not followed it, viz in the cases of Jagdish H. Patel, TA No.411 of 2017 dtd 01/08/2017 (8% disallowance) and TEJUA ROHITKUMAR KAPADIA, Surat in TA No. 691/2017 dated 18.09.2017 (0% disallowance

SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing officer made addition of Rs. 82.25 lacs plus 29.00 lacs is equal to Rs. 1,11,25,000/- (111.25 lacs). 8. On further verification of audited accounts, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made payment of employees contribution towards ESI & PF beyond the due date

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing officer made addition of Rs. 82.25 lacs plus 29.00 lacs is equal to Rs. 1,11,25,000/- (111.25 lacs). 8. On further verification of audited accounts, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made payment of employees contribution towards ESI & PF beyond the due date

N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

bogus purchases. Similarly in CIT Vs Kashiram Textile Mills Pvt Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble High Court held that there was no material on record to conclude that in addition to the alleged fictitious purchases there were also some other purchases for the same material under 24 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 different invoices

THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VAPI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

bogus purchases. Similarly in CIT Vs Kashiram Textile Mills Pvt Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble High Court held that there was no material on record to conclude that in addition to the alleged fictitious purchases there were also some other purchases for the same material under 24 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 different invoices

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. SHRI AMRUTLAL BABALDAS PATEL,, ANKLESHWAR

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel, Income Tax, Circle-2, Vs I) A/96, Jalkamal Apartment, Bharuch. Near Manav Mandir, Gidc, Ankleshwar, Gujarat – 392002. Ii) 32, Surdhara Bunglow, Near Sai Hospital, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aebpp 2999 E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Jimit Shah – Ca Revenue By Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.Dr 22/02/2022 Date Of Hearing 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara Dated 29.04.2016 For The A.Y. 2012-13. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Development Expenses Of Rs.1,79,19,550/- Without Appreciating That The Purported Expenditure Was On Account Of Contractual Payment To Four Related Parties. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Payment Of The Labour Expenses To The Contractors Were Held Up For Three Years Of Sale Of Land & Payment Was Made In The Calendar Year 2015 Only After The A.O. Sought Proof Of Payment. 1.2 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That Contractors Of The Assessee Have Also Held Up Payment To Their Creditors For A Long Span Of Three Years, Which Is Not Acceptable On Any Surmise. Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel

deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal. The order of the CIT(A) on the above issue be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2012-13 on 31.07.2013 declaring income of Rs.1.22 crore

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

bogus share application money u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, after duly considering the facts brought on record that the assessee has not furnished any evidence to prove the credit worthiness of the ITA No.140/SRT/2020/AY.2011-12 J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd. alleged investor and genuineness of the transaction. Mere filing of copy of ITR, computation and copy of bank accounts does