ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. GUJARAT POLYSOL CHEMICALS LIMITED, VAPI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

purchases should be brought to tax. Considering the assessee's disclosed gross profit of 8.68%, a further addition of 7.5% was deemed too high. Thus, the gross profit was increased to 9.00%.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 250", "Section 147", "Section 132", "Section 153A", "Section 131", "Section 133(6)"], "issues": "Whether the addition on account of bogus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. GUJARAT POLYSOL CHEMICALS LIMITED, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant & & Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Gujarat Polysol Income Tax Chemicals Limited 9Th Floor, Fortune Square Ii, 1, Plot No. 1734, 3Rd Daman Road, Chala, Vapi Phase, Gidc, Vapi, 396191 Gujarat 396195 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg8908Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

bogus purchase, in fact, at the time of search no major discrepancy was found in the purchase and stock register by the search party except in respect of a few items, in respect of entries were pending and later on which was made and in normal difference of about slightly 1.00% more than was found. Such discrepancy was explained

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. GUJARAT POLYSOL CHEMICALS LIMITED, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant & & Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Gujarat Polysol Income Tax Chemicals Limited 9Th Floor, Fortune Square Ii, 1, Plot No. 1734, 3Rd Daman Road, Chala, Vapi Phase, Gidc, Vapi, 396191 Gujarat 396195 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg8908Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

bogus purchase, in fact, at the time of search no major discrepancy was found in the purchase and stock register by the search party except in respect of a few items, in respect of entries were pending and later on which was made and in normal difference of about slightly 1.00% more than was found. Such discrepancy was explained

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147 shows that for taking action under thesaid provision what is required is that (i) the ITO has received ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. information, and (ii) in consequence of such information he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The question was whether

SHRIFAL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147 shows that for taking action under thesaid provision what is required is that (i) the ITO has received ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. information, and (ii) in consequence of such information he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The question was whether

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147 shows that for taking action under thesaid provision what is required is that (i) the ITO has received ITA Nos. 190 - 191 &250/SRT/2023 Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd. information, and (ii) in consequence of such information he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The question was whether

GUJARAT POLYSOL CHEMICALS LIMITED LIMITED,VAPI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.513 & 595/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Plot No.1734, 3Rd Phase. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 Vapi, 8Th Floor, Fortune Square- Pan No. Aaacg 8908 Q Ii, Above Tbz, Chala-396191 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent /Ita No.595/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle, I, Plot No.1734, 3Rd Phase, Gidc, Vs Vapi, 9Th Floor, Fortune Vapi-396195 Pan No.Aaacg 8908 Q Square-Ii, Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

bogus purchase, in fact, at the time of search no major discrepancy was found in the purchase and stock register by the search party except in respect of a few items, in respect of entries were pending and later on which was made and in normal difference of about slightly 1.00% more than was found. Such discrepancy was explained

DCIT, VAPI vs. GUJARART POLYSOL CHEMICAL LTD, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.513 & 595/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Plot No.1734, 3Rd Phase. Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 Vapi, 8Th Floor, Fortune Square- Pan No. Aaacg 8908 Q Ii, Above Tbz, Chala-396191 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent /Ita No.595/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Polysol Chemicals Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle, I, Plot No.1734, 3Rd Phase, Gidc, Vs Vapi, 9Th Floor, Fortune Vapi-396195 Pan No.Aaacg 8908 Q Square-Ii, Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

bogus purchase, in fact, at the time of search no major discrepancy was found in the purchase and stock register by the search party except in respect of a few items, in respect of entries were pending and later on which was made and in normal difference of about slightly 1.00% more than was found. Such discrepancy was explained

M/S. SHASHVAT JEWELS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No3364/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S. Shashvat Jewels Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax, 6/1468, Shashvat House, Circle-2(1)(2) Surat Kansara Street, Mahidharpura, Surat 395003 Pan:Aajcs 9790D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus accommodation entries. During the year under consideration, the assessee has taken accommodation entries of Rs.16,45,630 from Rajan Diamond and Rs. 21,07,260 from Navakar Diamond aggregating to Rs.37,52,630 in the form of purchase who are being controlled by the Shri Bhanwarlal M. Jain. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued

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

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 LTCG. However, in assessment order addition was made u/s 68 and u/s 69 of the Act, respectively. Further there was no show cause for charging of tax at 30% as per the mandate of section 115BBE of the Act. Thus, Assessing Officer has violated ITA No.73/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar principal of natural justice. In this regard, ld Counsel relied

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 purchase of the goods. The purchases and sales both are required to be omitted in such case and as assessee has shown the profit on this transaction, there cannot be any addition. The CIT(A) deleted this addition on the ground that he already confirmed the addition of Rs.4 crores relating to the sales shown to M/s. Nirav

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 purchase of the goods. The purchases and sales both are required to be omitted in such case and as assessee has shown the profit on this transaction, there cannot be any addition. The CIT(A) deleted this addition on the ground that he already confirmed the addition of Rs.4 crores relating to the sales shown to M/s. Nirav

BSAS INFORTECH LIMITED, SURAT,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

purchases. Various evidences found and seized from the premises of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and others proved the above facts. As per list available with this office, it is found that the assessee company has received accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loan amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- from the concern M/s. Vanguard Jewels Limited of Pravinkumar Jain Group

BSAS INFOTECH LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

purchases. Various evidences found and seized from the premises of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and others proved the above facts. As per list available with this office, it is found that the assessee company has received accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loan amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- from the concern M/s. Vanguard Jewels Limited of Pravinkumar Jain Group

BSAS INFOTECH LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

purchases. Various evidences found and seized from the premises of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and others proved the above facts. As per list available with this office, it is found that the assessee company has received accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loan amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- from the concern M/s. Vanguard Jewels Limited of Pravinkumar Jain Group

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

section 69C of the Act; hence, SLP was dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which has dismissed the appeal of Department against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1994-1990 and 2095/Ahd/2010. The CIT(A) also observed that no evidence has been brought on record regarding unaccounted payment. He held that

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

section 69C of the Act; hence, SLP was dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which has dismissed the appeal of Department against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1994-1990 and 2095/Ahd/2010. The CIT(A) also observed that no evidence has been brought on record regarding unaccounted payment. He held that