ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

bogus purchases. 16. The Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted before us the interpretation of Circular No.452 of CBDT which is reproduced below: “405-406. Compulsory Audit - Whether the provision is applicable TO commission agents, arahtias, etc. 1. Section 44AB, as inserted by the Finance Act, l984, casts an obligation on every person carrying on business to get his accounts

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

bogus purchases. 16. The Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted before us the interpretation of Circular No.452 of CBDT which is reproduced below: “405-406. Compulsory Audit - Whether the provision is applicable TO commission agents, arahtias, etc. 1. Section 44AB, as inserted by the Finance Act, l984, casts an obligation on every person carrying on business to get his accounts

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

bogus purchases. 16. The Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted before us the interpretation of Circular No.452 of CBDT which is reproduced below: “405-406. Compulsory Audit - Whether the provision is applicable TO commission agents, arahtias, etc. 1. Section 44AB, as inserted by the Finance Act, l984, casts an obligation on every person carrying on business to get his accounts

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

bogus purchases. 16. The Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted before us the interpretation of Circular No.452 of CBDT which is reproduced below: “405-406. Compulsory Audit - Whether the provision is applicable TO commission agents, arahtias, etc. 1. Section 44AB, as inserted by the Finance Act, l984, casts an obligation on every person carrying on business to get his accounts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PAMECHA, AJMER

In the result the ground No

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

bogus purchases. 16. The Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted before us the interpretation of Circular No.452 of CBDT which is reproduced below: “405-406. Compulsory Audit - Whether the provision is applicable TO commission agents, arahtias, etc. 1. Section 44AB, as inserted by the Finance Act, l984, casts an obligation on every person carrying on business to get his accounts

SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

1,30,09,514/- out of total addition of Rs. 4,68,34,249/- on account of alleged bogus purchase by estimation of profit at the rate of 5% of alleged bogus purchase. 4. It is therefore prayed that addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted or the matter may please

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTERS PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

1,30,09,514/- out of total addition of Rs. 4,68,34,249/- on account of alleged bogus purchase by estimation of profit at the rate of 5% of alleged bogus purchase. 4. It is therefore prayed that addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted or the matter may please

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

1 (SC)[20-01-\n2010) and in the case of PCIT (Inv.) & Ors. Vs. Laljibhai\nKanjibhai Mandalia 2022 IETL 1944: (2022) 446 ITR 18: (2022)\n327 CTR 353: (2022) 215 DTR 417: (2022) 288 Тахтап 361.\n11. On merit of the addition, the Ld. AR of the assessee also\nrelied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL PUKHRAJ JAIN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.89/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Anil Pukhraj Jain, Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206-2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent)/ "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q ""या"ेप सं Cross Objection No.10/Srt/2021 (A/O Ita No.89/Srt/2017) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) Anil Pukhraj Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206- 2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Vs. Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. Appellant/Co-Objector (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2023

section 147/148 were there before the assessing officer. 8. We note that it is purely a legal issue and all facts are already on record which goes to the root of the matter and no further inquiry is required for deciding the same as all facts are already on record. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid down

SHRI RAVJIBHAI B DHAMELIYA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

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

bogus accommodation entries were established beyond doubt during the search proceedings as no evidence of any sales purchase of diamonds was found neither any stocks of the diamonds was founds. These evidences when confronted were admitted under section 132(4) of the Act by Rajhendra Jain and others himself. The income tax proceedings are not governed by the strict rules

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA, SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

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

bogus accommodation entries were established beyond doubt during the search proceedings as no evidence of any sales purchase of diamonds was found neither any stocks of the diamonds was founds. These evidences when confronted were admitted under section 132(4) of the Act by Rajhendra Jain and others himself. The income tax proceedings are not governed by the strict rules

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,, SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

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

bogus accommodation entries were established beyond doubt during the search proceedings as no evidence of any sales purchase of diamonds was found neither any stocks of the diamonds was founds. These evidences when confronted were admitted under section 132(4) of the Act by Rajhendra Jain and others himself. The income tax proceedings are not governed by the strict rules

SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

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

bogus accommodation entries were established beyond doubt during the search proceedings as no evidence of any sales purchase of diamonds was found neither any stocks of the diamonds was founds. These evidences when confronted were admitted under section 132(4) of the Act by Rajhendra Jain and others himself. The income tax proceedings are not governed by the strict rules

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. MAGNIFIQUE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.389 & 458/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Magnifique Gems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 105, Rajshree Building, Maniyara 1(1)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Sheri Na Naka,Mahidharpura, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395003. Civil Hospital, Surat-395001

bogus purchase from Rose Gems Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above the Assessing Office had reason to believe that the income of the assessee to the extent of Rs.10,53,02,132/- had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Therefore notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2018 after recording the reasons and getting

MAGNIFIQUE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(1)(4), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.389 & 458/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Magnifique Gems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 105, Rajshree Building, Maniyara 1(1)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Sheri Na Naka,Mahidharpura, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Surat-395003. Civil Hospital, Surat-395001

bogus purchase from Rose Gems Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above the Assessing Office had reason to believe that the income of the assessee to the extent of Rs.10,53,02,132/- had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Therefore notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2018 after recording the reasons and getting

ITO, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESHKUMAR LALCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.452/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Mukeshkumar Lalchand Jain, 2(3)(8), Room No.407, 4Th Prop. Of M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Floor, Anavil Business Vs. Office No. 401, Floor, H. Centre, Adajan-Hajira Road, No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Adajan, Surat-395009 Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agupj3281A (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

132(4) of the Act. It was also accepted by Gautam Jain Group, that he manages and controls the business affairs of all the concerns in which the persons who were his employees are also shown as directors, partners and proprietors. The details information and evidences available as mentioned above where the assessee has received bogus accommodation entries of purchases

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)

132, yet the Assessing Officer instead of issuance of notice under section 153A proceeded to make the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of purchase considered by him disputed / inflated purchase. We further find that before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its stand and contended that assessee's purchase are supported by bills

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)

132, yet the Assessing Officer instead of issuance of notice under section 153A proceeded to make the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed 25% of purchase considered by him disputed / inflated purchase. We further find that before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its stand and contended that assessee's purchase are supported by bills