BALMUKUND M VAISHNAV,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, and since the ITA Nos. 204 &205/SRT/2019 Balmukund M. Vaishnav assessee failed to explain that the purchases worth Rs.28,81,47,552/- are genuine purchases therefore appropriate addition on account of bogus

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

Section 143(3) at the time of search and books result were accepted after due verification including the purchases. So no addition can be made in such assessment year. 11. On the disallowance on account of bogus

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 143(3) at the time of search and books result were accepted after due verification including the purchases. So no addition can be made in such assessment year. 11. On the disallowance on account of bogus

DILKHUSH BABEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

DILKHUSH BABEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI NAVRATAN JAIN,, MUMBAI

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

SHRI NAVRATAN SINGH JAIN,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

SHRI NAVRATAN SINGH JAIN,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. DILKHUSH ANNRAJ BABEL, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

SHRI NARAYAN LAL SHARMA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

DILKHUSH BABEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

ASHISH MOHAN MAHAWAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

DILKHUSH BABEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3) (7), SURAT vs. DILKHUSH BABEL, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. DILKHUSH BABEL, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

SHRI NAVRATAN SINGH JAIN,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ASHISH MOHAN MAHAWAR, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during

SHRI NARAYAN TULSIRAM SHARMA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

bogus sales and purchase bills and providing front to concerns which do not want to import diamonds in their own hands. On the basis of such credible information, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion that income to the extent of purchases / sales shown from various concerned of Pravin Kumar Jain as estimated assessment. The Assessing Officer further noted that during