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.

24 in Notes on Accounts [Part of 3CD Report], Auditor has put the following note [Sr.No2]- "2. As explained to us assessee is commission agent but to record the movement of goods it has maintained sales and purchases register. Commission/gross receipts denotes to excess of sales overpurchases." 7.5 On the basis of above evidences & material, it is crystal clear that

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.

24 in Notes on Accounts [Part of 3CD Report], Auditor has put the following note [Sr.No2]- "2. As explained to us assessee is commission agent but to record the movement of goods it has maintained sales and purchases register. Commission/gross receipts denotes to excess of sales overpurchases." 7.5 On the basis of above evidences & material, it is crystal clear that

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.

24 in Notes on Accounts [Part of 3CD Report], Auditor has put the following note [Sr.No2]- "2. As explained to us assessee is commission agent but to record the movement of goods it has maintained sales and purchases register. Commission/gross receipts denotes to excess of sales overpurchases." 7.5 On the basis of above evidences & material, it is crystal clear that

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.

24 in Notes on Accounts [Part of 3CD Report], Auditor has put the following note [Sr.No2]- "2. As explained to us assessee is commission agent but to record the movement of goods it has maintained sales and purchases register. Commission/gross receipts denotes to excess of sales overpurchases." 7.5 On the basis of above evidences & material, it is crystal clear that

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.

24 in Notes on Accounts [Part of 3CD Report], Auditor has put the following note [Sr.No2]- "2. As explained to us assessee is commission agent but to record the movement of goods it has maintained sales and purchases register. Commission/gross receipts denotes to excess of sales overpurchases." 7.5 On the basis of above evidences & material, it is crystal clear that

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

24. To support various contentions, the ld AR for the assessee relied on all the case laws filed before ld CIT(A). In addition to the ld AR for the assessee also relied on the following case laws; (A) On the issue of impugned bogus purchases,  ACIT Vs Vardhman Export (Tax Appeal No. 265 of 2008 Gujarat High Court)  ACIT

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

24. To support various contentions, the ld AR for the assessee relied on all the case laws filed before ld CIT(A). In addition to the ld AR for the assessee also relied on the following case laws; (A) On the issue of impugned bogus purchases,  ACIT Vs Vardhman Export (Tax Appeal No. 265 of 2008 Gujarat High Court)  ACIT

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

bogus purchases ITA 89/SRT/2017 & CO. 10/SRT/2021/AY.2008-09 Anil Pukhraj Jain was fresh issue before the Assessing Officer and it is a fresh and new information therefore assessing officer has rightly reopened the assessment. Moreover, in the reasons recorded on dated 28.03.2015, it is mentioned that: “From the above facts, I have reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs.12

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 9,64,13,991/- is, therefore, added to the total income of the assessee, by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to only 5% of the purchases by following the Tribunal order of earlier years. Further, Ld. CIT(A) noted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 9,64,13,991/- is, therefore, added to the total income of the assessee, by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to only 5% of the purchases by following the Tribunal order of earlier years. Further, Ld. CIT(A) noted that

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

24. We note that addition was not solely made based on the statement rather it has made based on the evidence and documents collected during the survey proceedings. The Assessing Officer has stated in assessment order that additions were made based on the documents and evidences obtained by the department during the survey proceedings and not based on the statement

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

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.

section 132(4) on 05.10.2013, Shri Rajendra Sohanlai Jain has admitted that he and his dummy concerns/entities were engaged in business of bills shopping through all the concerns. It has also been mentioned that he has admitted to be holding no physical stock at any of his place at any point of time and that they were merely lending names

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.

section 132(4) on 05.10.2013, Shri Rajendra Sohanlai Jain has admitted that he and his dummy concerns/entities were engaged in business of bills shopping through all the concerns. It has also been mentioned that he has admitted to be holding no physical stock at any of his place at any point of time and that they were merely lending names

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.

section 132(4) on 05.10.2013, Shri Rajendra Sohanlai Jain has admitted that he and his dummy concerns/entities were engaged in business of bills shopping through all the concerns. It has also been mentioned that he has admitted to be holding no physical stock at any of his place at any point of time and that they were merely lending names

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.

section 132(4) on 05.10.2013, Shri Rajendra Sohanlai Jain has admitted that he and his dummy concerns/entities were engaged in business of bills shopping through all the concerns. It has also been mentioned that he has admitted to be holding no physical stock at any of his place at any point of time and that they were merely lending names

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

section 133(6) of the Act, wherein all suppliers have\nconfirmed their supplies and Sunil Patel in his affidavit by\nextracted in a statement during the search proceedings as\nclarified that he was under pressure and has no experience of\nworking in manufacturing industry and made a statement under\nmisconception of cash discounting on purchase; and по\nevidence of investment