UMESHKUMAR P BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.154/SRT/2020

UMESHKUMAR P BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.154/SRT/2020

ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI UMESH P BANSAL, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.154/SRT/2020

ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI UMESH P BANSAL, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. 2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No.154/SRT/2020

TARACHAND MOHANLAL AGARWAL,SURAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SURAT-01, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kambletarachand Mohanlal Agarwal, The Principal Commissioner Vs. D-509, Shreepal Residency, Of Income Tax-1, Near Corner Point, Surat. City Light Road, Surat-395007. [Pan : Aazpa7937K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiren Vepari, Ar Respondent By: Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

bogus purchases. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. This fact has been confirmed as per the grounds taken by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). The similar matter is taken by the Ld.PCIT under section 263 for taxing the same as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 263. Revision of orders prejudicial

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

purchase and sale transactions of\nshares of GLOBAL CAPITAL MARKET LIMITED are proved genuine by third party\nevidences - bank, broker; DP-demat account, and in the absence of any material to\nprove cash changing hands in the transaction, the addition made by the assessing\nofficer under section 68 of the Act, by treating the sale consideration as unexplained,\nsham

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

purchase and sale transactions of shares of GLOBAL CAPITAL MARKET LIMITED are proved genuine by third party evidences - bank, broker; DP-demat account, and in the absence of any material to prove cash changing hands in the transaction, the addition made by the assessing officer under section 68 of the Act, by treating the sale consideration as unexplained, sham

NAZAR IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1)(3), SURAT (CURRENT JURISDICTION), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Nazar Impex Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395 003 Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccn3603R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’), Dated 26.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeals Are As Under: “1. Ground 6. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Rejection Of Books Of Account Under Section 145(3) Of Income Tax, Act 1961 Without Pointing Out Any Defect In Books Of Account & Even The Return Income On The Basis Of Books Of Account Were Also Not Disputed.

section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the issue which is subject matter of appeal cannot be considered again in reassessment proceeding. 7. Ground 4. On the facts and circumstances of the 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.

120,01,39,474/-. The Sales made in the remaining part of February month and March 2017 is not included. Whereas in the Return of Income field by you for the A.Y. 2017-18, you have shown sales of Rs.76,90,71,597/- only. Please submit your reply explaining the difference and also provide the supporting documents on which

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.

120,01,39,474/-. The Sales made in the remaining part of February month and March 2017 is not included. Whereas in the Return of Income field by you for the A.Y. 2017-18, you have shown sales of Rs.76,90,71,597/- only. Please submit your reply explaining the difference and also provide the supporting documents on which

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.

120,01,39,474/-. The Sales made in the remaining part of February month and March 2017 is not included. Whereas in the Return of Income field by you for the A.Y. 2017-18, you have shown sales of Rs.76,90,71,597/- only. Please submit your reply explaining the difference and also provide the supporting documents on which

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.

120,01,39,474/-. The Sales made in the remaining part of February month and March 2017 is not included. Whereas in the Return of Income field by you for the A.Y. 2017-18, you have shown sales of Rs.76,90,71,597/- only. Please submit your reply explaining the difference and also provide the supporting documents on which

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.

120,01,39,474/-. The Sales made in the remaining part of February month and March 2017 is not included. Whereas in the Return of Income field by you for the A.Y. 2017-18, you have shown sales of Rs.76,90,71,597/- only. Please submit your reply explaining the difference and also provide the supporting documents on which

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.

120,01,39,474/-. The Sales made in the remaining part of February month and March 2017 is not included. Whereas in the Return of Income field by you for the A.Y. 2017-18, you have shown sales of Rs.76,90,71,597/- only. Please submit your reply explaining the difference and also provide the supporting documents on which

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.

120,01,39,474/-. The Sales made in the remaining part of February month and March 2017 is not included. Whereas in the Return of Income field by you for the A.Y. 2017-18, you have shown sales of Rs.76,90,71,597/- only. Please submit your reply explaining the difference and also provide the supporting documents on which

M/S. C. J. GROUP & GAJRAS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,PANVEL, MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.02/Srt/2021 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S C.J. Group & Gajras Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Builders & Developers, Vs Bharuch Bhoomi Land Mark, Plot No. 30-30A, Sector-17, Khan Colony, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra Pan No. Aagfc 4658 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) on 24.03.2014. M/s C J Group & Gajras Builders & Developers 2. On perusal of record shows that impugned order was passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 24.08.2020, however, assessee has filed present appeal on 05.01.2021. Thus, there is delay of 65 days