ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT vs. LYPSA GEMS, SURAT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) A.C.I.T. M/S Lypsa Gems, Circle-1(2), Plot No. 230, Special Economic Vs. Surat. Zone, Sachin, Surat-394230. Pan : Aaefl 0483 G Appellant Respondednt

exempted under Section 10AA, therefore, all the allegations of bogus purchases are false. The assessee has made genuine purchases. The Assessing

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

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)

exempted from it. In any case, there was complete prohibition from sale and purchase of gold in SBN after 08.11.2016 as SBN ceased to be valid legal tender. The Ld. CIT-DR strongly argued that facts being similar, the order of AO may be upheld in entirety. 13. On the other hand, Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee

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)

exempted from it. In any case, there was complete prohibition from sale and purchase of gold in SBN after 08.11.2016 as SBN ceased to be valid legal tender. The Ld. CIT-DR strongly argued that facts being similar, the order of AO may be upheld in entirety. 13. On the other hand, Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

exemption? iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred deleted the addition ignoring the facts that the transactions in the guise of Long Term Capital Gain, as claimed by the assessee was arranged through brokers, operators and exit providers for generation of bogus Long term Capital Gain

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

exemption? iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred deleted the addition ignoring the facts that the transactions in the guise of Long Term Capital Gain, as claimed by the assessee was arranged through brokers, operators and exit providers for generation of bogus Long term Capital Gain

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus or investment made in penny stock. The shares were purchased in order to invest and not for the purpose of earning exempted

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

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

KAMLESH KUMAR GADIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

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

purchased offline but the same was acquired through banking channel. The Assessing Officer has further noted that the assessee is not a regular trader or investor in the shares. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has entered into above share transaction though above mentioned circular trading to take accommodation entry of bogus exempted

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

bogus or investment made in penny stock. The shares were purchased in\norder to invest and not for the purpose of earning exempted

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

bogus or investment made in penny stock. The shares were purchased in order to invest and not for the purpose of earning exempted

JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

bogus or investment made in penny stock. The shares were purchased in order to invest and not for the purpose of earning exempted

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

bogus or investment made in penny stock. The shares were purchased in order to invest and not for the purpose of earning exempted

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

bogus or investment made in penny stock. The shares were purchased in order to invest and not for the purpose of earning exempted

MURTUJA HUSAINBHAI HIRANI,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, , NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Murtuja Hussainbhai Hirani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3, Prop. Of R. K. Bullion, Navsari Shop No.5, Pranav Chamber Madhumati, Navsari – 396445, Gujarat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aciph3680D Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 09/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

bogus. The Ld. Counsel further stated that assessee made an agreement for cash purchases of the gold from various customers, since the assessee is trading in gold items, therefore he made minor cash purchases, which is only 4% of the total purchases hence the amount of cash purchase is very insignificant. Besides, the assessee made purchases in the course

GAUTAM PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH HUF,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act should not be allowed because share transactions were bogus as company "C" whose shares were allegedly purchased

SMT. KANCHANBEN PRAVINBHAI SHETH,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act should not be allowed because share transactions were bogus as company "C" whose shares were allegedly purchased