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

Section 133(6) is a conclusive evidence about the existence and genuinety of suppliers. The assessee also furnished summary of stock in various assessment years from A.Y. 2009-10 to 2014-15 as well as finished stock for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2014- 15. The assessee submitted that if the purchases are bogus

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT vs. M/S. RAJLAXMI INFRA, SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Rajlaxmi Infra Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Room 64, Rajlaxmi Height, Vs No.410, Aayakar Bhawan, Singanpore Cosway Road, Majura Gate, Opp. Shradhhadeep Soc, Surat-395001 Surat-395004 Pan No. Aaofr 1095 C ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

bogus purchase, Ld. CIT(A) held that during assessment, Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act, however

LATE SHRI BHIMSEN DARBARILAL ARORA,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, SURAT

In the result, ground no.4 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Through, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, L/H. Rajat Bhimsen Arora, Surat. Smt. Mamta Bhimsen Arora, A-201, Madhulika Apartment, Bhatar Road, Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acaps9230L

133(6) of the Act issued to purchase parties. As a matter of fact, there is no direct evidence in the form of statement/admission of purchase parties to hold that purchases made from them were bogus. This lead to only one conclusion that enquiry remains inconclusive but at the same time everything is not in order with regard to these

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

bogus 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

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

133(6) to the assessee after getting necessary approval of PCIT-1, Surat. Since the assessee did not submit any reply within the time mentioned in the notice, therefore, it was clear that the assessee had taken accommodation entry in the form of bogus purchase from Rose Gems Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above the Assessing Office had reason

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

133(6) to the assessee after getting necessary approval of PCIT-1, Surat. Since the assessee did not submit any reply within the time mentioned in the notice, therefore, it was clear that the assessee had taken accommodation entry in the form of bogus purchase from Rose Gems Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above the Assessing Office had reason

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.1(1)(1),, SURAT vs. ENVIRO CONTROL PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Vs. Surat. Maharashtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aaace 8700 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

bogus bills to its beneficiaries. Such fact has been proved before the VAT department of Government of Maharashtra. The assessee claimed that the material purchased from such parties were sold to three different 11 ACIT Vs Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd. parties. Notices under Section 133(6

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)

section 133(6) of the Act, wherein all suppliers have confirmed their supplies and Sunil Patel in his affidavit by extracted in a statement during the search proceedings as clarified that he was under pressure and has no experience of working in manufacturing industry and made a statement under misconception of cash discounting on purchase; and no evidence of investment

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)

section 133(6) of the Act, wherein all suppliers have confirmed their supplies and Sunil Patel in his affidavit by extracted in a statement during the search proceedings as clarified that he was under pressure and has no experience of working in manufacturing industry and made a statement under misconception of cash discounting on purchase; and no evidence of investment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), SURAT vs. M/S. KHAZANA BAZAR PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.333/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. M/S. Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Surat. C-104, Radha Raman Textile Market, Saroli, Surat- 395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck0726P (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.334/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), C-104, Radha Raman Textile Surat. Market, Saroli, Surat- 395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck0726P (Assessee) (Respondent)

bogus purchases as against disallowance made by the AO at the rate of 100% of such purchases amounting to Rs.2,26,10,841/- ignoring the facts that these purchases are non-genuine transactions as the assesse failed to substantiate his claim of genuine purchase during assessment proceedings as well as during appeal proceedings by furnishing documentary evidences

KHAZANA BAZAR PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.333/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. M/S. Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Surat. C-104, Radha Raman Textile Market, Saroli, Surat- 395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck0726P (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.334/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), C-104, Radha Raman Textile Surat. Market, Saroli, Surat- 395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck0726P (Assessee) (Respondent)

bogus purchases as against disallowance made by the AO at the rate of 100% of such purchases amounting to Rs.2,26,10,841/- ignoring the facts that these purchases are non-genuine transactions as the assesse failed to substantiate his claim of genuine purchase during assessment proceedings as well as during appeal proceedings by furnishing documentary evidences

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

6. The Ld.CIT(A) on considering the material placed before him, in the form of assessment record, assessment order and submission of assessee held that purchase cannot be treated as bogus if they are supported by bills, payments were made by account payee cheque, transactions were confirmed by suppliers, purchase consideration has not come back to the assessee as corresponding

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

6. The Ld.CIT(A) on considering the material placed before him, in the form of assessment record, assessment order and submission of assessee held that purchase cannot be treated as bogus if they are supported by bills, payments were made by account payee cheque, transactions were confirmed by suppliers, purchase consideration has not come back to the assessee as corresponding

NIRALKUMAR K. SHAH,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-6,, VAPI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Niralkumar K Shah, I.T.O., B-001, Sharddha Co.Op Hsg. Soc., Ward-6, Vs. Gunan Road, Ta-Pardi, Valsad. Vapi. M. No. 9913800836 E Mail-Parinshahca@Gmail.Com Pan No. Bvjps 2700 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6) of the Act, M/s Kalpana Industries vide their reply dated 24/11/2016 stated that there was no role of Sh. Chintan K Shah regarding purchases from Shah Industrial products. Similarly Sumitomo Chemicals vide reply dated 21/11/2016 also stated that there is no role of Kishore K Shah on purchases made from Shah Industrial products. Shri Shashikant

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)

bogus- Tribunal held that entire quantity of opening stock, purchases and quantity manufactured were sold by the assessee thus finished goods were purchased by assessee, may be not from the parties shown in accounts, but from other sources-Thus not entire amount, but profit margin embedded m such amount would be subjected to tax-Held” c) CIT vs. President Industries

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)

bogus- Tribunal held that entire quantity of opening stock, purchases and quantity manufactured were sold by the assessee thus finished goods were purchased by assessee, may be not from the parties shown in accounts, but from other sources-Thus not entire amount, but profit margin embedded m such amount would be subjected to tax-Held” c) CIT vs. President Industries

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)

bogus- Tribunal held that entire quantity of opening stock, purchases and quantity manufactured were sold by the assessee thus finished goods were purchased by assessee, may be not from the parties shown in accounts, but from other sources-Thus not entire amount, but profit margin embedded m such amount would be subjected to tax-Held” c) CIT vs. President Industries

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

purchase, etc., for verification in spite of being provided with ample time to reconcile - Whether, on facts, assessee had failed to discharge onus cast on him to substantiate his claim and, therefore, impugned addition made by authorities below was to be upheld - Held, yes". This case is Affirmed in [2019] 101 taxmann.com 164 (Karnataka). 5. Considering the facts

VIVEK KHABIA,SURAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1072/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Vivek Khabia Income Tax Officer, Ward- H.No.1187-90-91, 1089, Office 2(3)(4), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम No.411, New Dtc Gheekanta Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Vs Road, Nr. Bhavani Vad Temple, Haripura, Surat-395 003 [Pan : Avspk 5724 E] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

bogus purchase and sales transaction. The assessee has not declared sales and purchase transactions correctly in the return of income and that not comply with show cause notice under section 148A(b). As notice under section 148A(b) was not complied. The case of assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that