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

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 be set aside to the file of CIT(A). 5. Appellant craves leave

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT vs. SHANTAI EXIM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA.No.436/SRT/2018 of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Meena

249 (Guj.) He has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) relied upon Judgment in the case of N.K. Proteins Limited (Supra) for upholding the disallowance of entire purchases in which incriminating documents were found against the assessee, on which, addition was made. But in the case of assessee no incriminating documents have been found, therefore, the said decision is totally different

SHANTAI EXIM LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, ITA.No.436/SRT/2018 of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Meena

249 (Guj.) He has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) relied upon Judgment in the case of N.K. Proteins Limited (Supra) for upholding the disallowance of entire purchases in which incriminating documents were found against the assessee, on which, addition was made. But in the case of assessee no incriminating documents have been found, therefore, the said decision is totally different

LEXUS SOFTMAC,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) both dated 20.05.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (in short

LEXUS SOFTMAC,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) both dated 20.05.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (in short

SHRI SUDEEP MAHENDRABHAI SHAH,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(3)(5),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

249 (SC) which is in favour of the assessee and where the addition on bogus purchases was sustained. However, the said decision is relevant to year before 1986 and not related to accommodation entries whereas in the case of there is sales tax matter and statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain hence, not applicable to the facts of present case

SANTOSHSINGH HUKUMSINGH KARNAWAT,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.23 /Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 Shri Santosh Singh Hukum Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karnawat, Prop. Shilpa Exports, 402, Ward- 2(3)(8) Surat Parmukh Darshan Apartment, Rampara Main Road Opp. Patidar Bhawan Mahidharpura, Surat - 395 003. [Pan: Arapk 9181 B] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 133(6) from the above two parties who have duly complied with, hence, said parties cannot be said as bogus concerns. The learned counsel for the assessee relying on the decision of Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. M K Brothers [1987] 30 Taxman 547 (Guj) /[1987] 163 ITR 249 (Guj) submitted that

M/S. DELUX DIAMONDS,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri C .M. Garg & Shri O. P. Meena

249 (Guj). It was also contended that when sales are not doubted then purchases could not be doubted. It was submitted that in the case of the assessee payments were made by account payee cheques and no material was brought on record that monies are returned to the assessee and therefore, rate adopted in Vijay Proteins

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. SHRI ABHISHEK L. JAIN,, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.344/Srt/2019 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Abhishek L.Jain 2(3)(7), Room No. 414, 4Th Prop Of Manglam Export, Vs Floor, Anavil Business Centre, 302, Pipla Sheri, Adajan-Hajira Road, Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395003 Pan : Abxpj 0344 G Surat-395009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

bogus purchases was warranted. The ld. AR for the assessee prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue. To support his various submission, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the following case law:  Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 IDTR 713 (SC)  Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC)  Mehta Parikh

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. SUNIL MITTAL HUF , SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.520/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Sunil Mittal Huf, Ward – 1(3)(1), 101, Mahadev Park, Kailash Nagar, Surat Ghod Dod Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamhs7185Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 15/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

249(Guj). Alternatively, ld Counsel argued that addition may be restricted up to 5% of purchases. 520/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Sunil Mittal HUF 10. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. In our considered view, it was wholly erroneous on the part

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

purchase made from such parties were bogus. The assessee made payment to suppliers in succeeding year, ledger account showing payment was also furnished. In subsequent year, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) by accepting return of income. No adverse inference called for against such payment to such suppliers were made in the assessment order passed under section

M/S. YAELSTAR DIAMONDS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

249 (Guj). Further, disallowance of purchases is mere estimate as the purchases were not fully verifiable. In similar circumstances several authorities have reduced the estimate to 3 to 5% of the purchases. Therefore, this being purely an estimate basis and therefore, this does not amounts to either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The genuineness of purchases

JAYVADAN RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

bogus purchases cannot be made when the books of accounts are not rejected and merely because the suppliers had not appear before the assessing officer. 16. The addition cannot be made u/s 69C as can be seen from the observation of Honbourable Gujarat High Court in case of ACIT vs Vardhman Exports - Tax Appeal No. 265 of 2008 (Gu)) where

SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6.Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the penalty on estimated addition and confirmed the penalty in respect of sundry creditors, observing as follows: “On merits of penalty levied by the AO, I find that the penalty

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6.Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the penalty on estimated addition and confirmed the penalty in respect of sundry creditors, observing as follows: “On merits of penalty levied by the AO, I find that the penalty

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

249,750 Ramani Township Mota Varacha Surat 9 Vipul DGQPS5409N 407, Bid. No. -G, 3,000,000 Savaliya Yamuna Palace, Mota Varacha Surat 10 Chetan BMPPS7036A 407, Bid. No. -G, 3,000,000 Savaliya Yamuna Palace, Mota Varacha Surat 11 Bhagirath AOLPN2760D 99, Shree Nath Dwar 120,000 Narigara Soc. Puna Gam surat 12 Dharmendra AVMPA4106C 202, Payal app. Ankur

MANSUKHBHAI DAYALBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1780/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mansukhbhai Dayalbhai V. Assistant Commissioner Of Patel,(Sheta), Income Tax, Central 10 Shantiniketan Row House, Circle-2, Surat Anand Mahal Road Adajan, Surat. [Pan: Abcpp 1275 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri Sriniwas T. Bidari, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 27.08.2019 Pronouncement

249 (SC) held as under: Mansukhbhai D Patel v. ACIT-2, Surat /I.T.A. No.1780/AHD/2016/A.Y.2011-12 Page 7 of 21 The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal (vide, e.g., CIT v. Anand Prasad