DIVA DIAMONDS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

JAYVADAN AMRATLAL RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Jayvadan Amratlal Rughnathwala, Vs. The Pcit - 1, 6/7, Khatodara Ind Service Society, Surat B/H Sub Jail Khatodara, Surat – 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpr4348L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 26/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

bogus purchase entry of Rs.14,84,152/- from M/s S.K. Enterprises without actual movement of goods and hence, the purchase expense of Rs.14,84,152/- made from M/s S.K. Enterprise was disallowed and treated as income of assessee u/s 69C of the Act. Scrutiny assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was completed on 20.03.2023, determining the total income

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

bogus entry and engaged in hawala transaction, therefore Ld. PCIT has exercised his jurisdictional power u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue has also pointed out that Assessing Officer has not examined deliberately the issue of share application money to the tune of Rs.8 crores. Therefore, order of Ld. PCIT passed under section 263

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

bogus entry and engaged in hawala transaction, therefore Ld. PCIT has exercised his jurisdictional power u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue has also pointed out that Assessing Officer has not examined deliberately the issue of share application money to the tune of Rs.8 crores. Therefore, order of Ld. PCIT passed under section 263

SRINU VENKATAIAH MARGAM,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Revision Jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and observed that the A.O. should have disallowed the entire purchases and not the only gross profit on such bogus

NAYNABEN ARUNBHAI JAIN,AHURA NAGAR SOCIETY vs. PCIT SURAT-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.571 & 572/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Naynaben Arunbhai Jain Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Surat – 395009 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acnpj 5784 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

revision order to pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration, the issues as may be considered together with the issues discussed in order. 3. It is therefore prayed that above order passed by Pr.CIT u/s 263 may please be quashed or set aside as your honours deems it proper. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete

NAYNABEN ARUNBHAI JAIN,AHURA NAGAR SOCIETY vs. PCIT SURAT-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.571 & 572/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Naynaben Arunbhai Jain Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Surat – 395009 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acnpj 5784 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

revision order to pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration, the issues as may be considered together with the issues discussed in order. 3. It is therefore prayed that above order passed by Pr.CIT u/s 263 may please be quashed or set aside as your honours deems it proper. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. SHANTAI EXIM LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Deputy Commissioner Of Shantai Exim Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.435, Sawlani Vs Circle-2(1)(2), Compound, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat. Pan: Aaecm 1115 D Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of Hon’ble ITAT’s order without appreciating the detailed findings of the AO in the assessment order/penalty order establishing the non-genuinity of the purchases made from Damor family. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A), Surat ought to have upheld

PANKAJ KANWARLAL JAIN(HUF),SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

Accordingly, following the same, this ground is appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.189/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain(Huf), V The Income Tax Officer, Pro. Of M/S.Mahek Diamond, S Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. 302, Santok Diamond, . Somnath Mahadevni Sheri, Haripura, Surat. [Pan: Aahhp 8601 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.268/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Income Tax Vs Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain(Huf), Officer, . Pro. Of M/S.Mahek Diamond, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. 302, Santok Diamond, Somnath Mahadevni Sheri, Haripura, Surat. [Pan: Aahhp 8601 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.188/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. Pro. Of M/S.Madhav Gems, S 203, Nishit Diamond Complex, . B/H World Diamond Centre, Hat Falia, Hripura, Surat. [Pan: Aczpj 5175 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus purchases, therefore, the decision in the case of M/s. M.K. Proteins Limited (supra), would not apply. It may also be noted here that in A.Y. 2010-11 the assessing officer accepted similar purchases in the scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on the identical facts. Similarly, seized material was also considered in that

ITO WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN, SURAT

Accordingly, following the same, this ground is appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.189/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain(Huf), V The Income Tax Officer, Pro. Of M/S.Mahek Diamond, S Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. 302, Santok Diamond, . Somnath Mahadevni Sheri, Haripura, Surat. [Pan: Aahhp 8601 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.268/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Income Tax Vs Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain(Huf), Officer, . Pro. Of M/S.Mahek Diamond, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. 302, Santok Diamond, Somnath Mahadevni Sheri, Haripura, Surat. [Pan: Aahhp 8601 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.188/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. Pro. Of M/S.Madhav Gems, S 203, Nishit Diamond Complex, . B/H World Diamond Centre, Hat Falia, Hripura, Surat. [Pan: Aczpj 5175 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus purchases, therefore, the decision in the case of M/s. M.K. Proteins Limited (supra), would not apply. It may also be noted here that in A.Y. 2010-11 the assessing officer accepted similar purchases in the scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on the identical facts. Similarly, seized material was also considered in that

PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT

Accordingly, following the same, this ground is appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.189/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain(Huf), V The Income Tax Officer, Pro. Of M/S.Mahek Diamond, S Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. 302, Santok Diamond, . Somnath Mahadevni Sheri, Haripura, Surat. [Pan: Aahhp 8601 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.268/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Income Tax Vs Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain(Huf), Officer, . Pro. Of M/S.Mahek Diamond, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. 302, Santok Diamond, Somnath Mahadevni Sheri, Haripura, Surat. [Pan: Aahhp 8601 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.188/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat. Pro. Of M/S.Madhav Gems, S 203, Nishit Diamond Complex, . B/H World Diamond Centre, Hat Falia, Hripura, Surat. [Pan: Aczpj 5175 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus purchases, therefore, the decision in the case of M/s. M.K. Proteins Limited (supra), would not apply. It may also be noted here that in A.Y. 2010-11 the assessing officer accepted similar purchases in the scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on the identical facts. Similarly, seized material was also considered in that

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

u/s 133A was conducted in the case of M/s Unique Polypack. During the course of survey on the basis of impounded material, Shri Nilesh R Patel, Accountant of firm, M/s Unique Polypack, has accepted that the purchases of the firm was bogus and payment given against the purchase was return to the firm in cash. One such entity from which

HARSHIT GEMS LTD,SURAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus purchases, facts in all appeals are almost common, therefore, with the consent of parties, all the appeals and Cos were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated order to avoid conflicting decisions. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that he has instructed by assessee not to press both cross

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S. HARSHIT GEMS LTD., , SURAT

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus purchases, facts in all appeals are almost common, therefore, with the consent of parties, all the appeals and Cos were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated order to avoid conflicting decisions. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that he has instructed by assessee not to press both cross

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S. HARSHIT GEMS LTD., , SURAT

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus purchases, facts in all appeals are almost common, therefore, with the consent of parties, all the appeals and Cos were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated order to avoid conflicting decisions. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that he has instructed by assessee not to press both cross

HARSHIT GEMS LTD,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s Co is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus purchases, facts in all appeals are almost common, therefore, with the consent of parties, all the appeals and Cos were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated order to avoid conflicting decisions. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that he has instructed by assessee not to press both cross

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

revision u/s 263 of the Act. It is fully covered under the substantive part as well as the Explanation - 2 of section 263 of the Act. 9.4 The assessee claimed exemption of Rs.37,45,935/- u/s.10(38) of the Act. Had the AO conducted appropriate inquiry, he would have been in a position to verify whether the LTCG was genuine

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

revision u/s 263 of the Act. It is fully covered under the substantive part as well as the Explanation - 2 of section 263 of the Act. 9.4 The assessee claimed exemption of Rs.37,45,935/- u/s.10(38) of the Act. Had the AO conducted appropriate inquiry, he would have been in a position to verify whether the LTCG was genuine

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