SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

bogus entity during survey proceedings and in the subsequent proceedings before the department. Further, mere payments made by cheques or RTGS does not establish that the said gold was received immediately and same was serially and genuinely sold to unknown 2200 purchasers against demonetized

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, SURAT vs. SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

bogus entity during survey proceedings and in the subsequent proceedings before the department. Further, mere payments made by cheques or RTGS does not establish that the said gold was received immediately and same was serially and genuinely sold to unknown 2200 purchasers against demonetized

AJAY KALISHCHANDRA BOHRA,DAMAN vs. PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 549/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Ajay Kalishchandra Bohra Principal Commissioner Of Income- 1, Plot No.22B, Daman Industrial Tax, Valsad, 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak बनाम Estate, Somnath Road, Dabhel, Arcade, Shantinagar, Tithal Road, Vs Daman-396 215 Valsad-396 001 [Pan : Ackpb 2567 R] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

bogus purchase and one such purchases was made from assessees proprietary concern M/s Ashutosh Industries (India). The assessee contested the re- assessment proceedings and filed complete details. The Assessing Officer, in the re-assessment proceedings, issued various show cause notices to substantiate the sales by assessee. In response such show cause notices, the assessee filed reply dated

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

DIPESH NARESH SATTARSHAKWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jidicial Member & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1235/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Dipesh Naresh Sattarshakwala, I.T.O., B-304, Sweet Residency, Near Ward 1(2)(1), Vs. Sitaram Nagar, Honey Park Road Surat. Adajan, Surat-395009 Pan No. Bjgps 6238 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

demonetization and further addition of Rs. 98.60 lacs bogus expenditure/ purchase / transaction with Dhawal Govindbhai Patel, who was providing cheque

JIGNESH RAJKUMAR MEHTA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Jignesh Rajkumar Mehta, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), 48, Sankalp Society, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. Bhatar, Surat – 395007. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbpm2561Q Assessee By Shri Umesh Dalal, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

bogus sales and moreover the Assessing Officer has not rejected books of accounts, hence addition should not be made. However, we note that assessee has not submitted complete stock details comprising opening stock of the previous year, closing stock and purchase and same details for current assessment year along with sales. We note that during the demonetization

DEVNGI JEWELLWERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Mmber आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Devngi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 109 -110, Shreyas Diamond Centre, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd3227A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

purchase bills, stock register etc. whereas in case of Choksi (supra), there was no independent verification of sales and stock movement and actual transactions were not substantiated. In case of Choksi (supra), the Tribunal observed that structured transactions involving bogus entities such as Nirav & Co. and S R Traders. The AO had also not followed the SOP in case

EMERALD GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

demonetization, duly recorded in the books of account. It was also contended that the books of account were regularly maintained and audited, quantitative stock records were furnished and duly reconciled and the purchases were accepted and not disputed by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR also submitted that the cash sales constituted only about 0.15% of total turnover of more

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.,2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

demonetization period. The ld CIT(A) did not accept the plea of the assessee and noted that the cash realized from the alleged sales was deposited in the bank account. It is not a case where turnover outside the books of accounts was detected. The plea of the assessee could have been accepted in the later case

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

demonetization period. The ld CIT(A) did not accept the plea of the assessee and noted that the cash realized from the alleged sales was deposited in the bank account. It is not a case where turnover outside the books of accounts was detected. The plea of the assessee could have been accepted in the later case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRA CIR.2, SURAT vs. DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

demonetization period. The ld CIT(A) did not accept the plea of the assessee and noted that the cash realized from the alleged sales was deposited in the bank account. It is not a case where turnover outside the books of accounts was detected. The plea of the assessee could have been accepted in the later case

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. M/S. DAGINA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., , SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

demonetization period. The ld CIT(A) did not accept the plea of the assessee and noted that the cash realized from the alleged sales was deposited in the bank account. It is not a case where turnover outside the books of accounts was detected. The plea of the assessee could have been accepted in the later case

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

demonetization period. The ld CIT(A) did not accept the plea of the assessee and noted that the cash realized from the alleged sales was deposited in the bank account. It is not a case where turnover outside the books of accounts was detected. The plea of the assessee could have been accepted in the later case

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

demonetization period. The ld CIT(A) did not accept the plea of the assessee and noted that the cash realized from the alleged sales was deposited in the bank account. It is not a case where turnover outside the books of accounts was detected. The plea of the assessee could have been accepted in the later case

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

demonetization period. The ld CIT(A) did not accept the plea of the assessee and noted that the cash realized from the alleged sales was deposited in the bank account. It is not a case where turnover outside the books of accounts was detected. The plea of the assessee could have been accepted in the later case