M/S. NAZAR IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-4,, SURAT

In the result all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1364 &1366/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Assessee) (Respondent)

340/- made by Ld. AO without providing information on he has relied, opportunity of cross examination and show cause notice. Thus action of AO is against the principal of natural justice and makes order invalid. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of books of account without

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)

purchase and sale of diamonds and, therefore, recorded his satisfactions based on the reasons recorded by the AO that the case of the assessee was fit for issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that there is no strength in the assessee's argument that the sanctioning authority did not comply with

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)

purchase and sale of diamonds and, therefore, recorded his satisfactions based on the reasons recorded by the AO that the case of the assessee was fit for issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that there is no strength in the assessee's argument that the sanctioning authority did not comply with

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)

purchase and sale of diamonds and, therefore, recorded his satisfactions based on the reasons recorded by the AO that the case of the assessee was fit for issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that there is no strength in the assessee's argument that the sanctioning authority did not comply with

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI MUKESH MAHAVIR PRASAD SEN , SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.106/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, Ward-2(3(8), Surat. 6/1862-63, 3Rd Floor, Office S. No.305, Ghanshyam Bhuvan, Bal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bcsps 0173 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.107/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Atul Kailashchandra Mehta, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. S. 7/2496, Office No.2, Shastru Chambers, Maznine Floor, Chandulal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alxpm 7834 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya - Ca Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

bogus purchase bills to suppress the profits for the year under consideration. ITA No.106 & 107/SRT/2017 for A.Y. 2007-08 & 08-09 Shri Mukesh Mahavirpraad Sen & Shri Atul Kailashchandra Mehta 7. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that an income of Rs.3,99,61,340/- as stated above, has escaped assessment in the hands

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. SHRI ATUL KAILASHCHANDRA MEHTA, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.106/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, Ward-2(3(8), Surat. 6/1862-63, 3Rd Floor, Office S. No.305, Ghanshyam Bhuvan, Bal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bcsps 0173 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.107/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Atul Kailashchandra Mehta, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. S. 7/2496, Office No.2, Shastru Chambers, Maznine Floor, Chandulal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alxpm 7834 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya - Ca Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

bogus purchase bills to suppress the profits for the year under consideration. ITA No.106 & 107/SRT/2017 for A.Y. 2007-08 & 08-09 Shri Mukesh Mahavirpraad Sen & Shri Atul Kailashchandra Mehta 7. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that an income of Rs.3,99,61,340/- as stated above, has escaped assessment in the hands

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

THE ITO, WARD-1,, NA vs. ARIVS.SHRI ANILKUMAR AMRUTLAL CHAHWALA, NAVSARI

In the result, this ground of appeal is rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2078/Ahd/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1003/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Amrutlal Chahwala, Ward-(1), Navsari. 102, Trimurti Complex, Vijalpore, Navsari. [Pan: Abnpc 6308 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

bogus purchase. (2) The CIT (A) also erred in law and facts in directing to delete the addition of Rs. 1,30,48,816/- by restricting the additions on account of disallowance of labour expenses. (3) The CIT (A) also erred in law and facts in directing to delete the addition of Rs. 7,00,330/- made on account

N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

bogus purchases. Similarly in CIT Vs Kashiram Textile Mills Pvt Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble High Court held that there was no material on record to conclude that in addition to the alleged fictitious purchases there were also some other purchases for the same material under 24 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 different invoices

THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VAPI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

bogus purchases. Similarly in CIT Vs Kashiram Textile Mills Pvt Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble High Court held that there was no material on record to conclude that in addition to the alleged fictitious purchases there were also some other purchases for the same material under 24 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 different invoices

JAINAM EXPORTS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Jainam Exports, I.T.O., 201, Adinath Apartment, Jadakhadi, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Mahidharpura, Surat-395003, Surat. Gujarat. Pan No. Aadfj 1363 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

340/- (12.5% of Rs. 25,94,724) on account of alleged unexplained cash credit. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. Jainam Exports Vs ITO 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing

SHITAL H. MEHTA L/H OF LATE HASMUKH K. MEHTA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2),, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed before not admitted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainishri Shital H Mehta, I.T.O., L/H Of Shri Hasmukh K Mehta, Ward-6(2), Vs. 302, Maha Laxmi Building, Surat. Brahman Falia, Katargam, Surat-395004. Pan No. Abjpm 8800 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 09/03/2015 for the Assessment year 2004-05. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts

THE ITO, WARD-5(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. ALFA SYNTHETICS,(NOW KNOWN AS M/S. ATLAS SYNTHETICS),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2701/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, V M/S.Alfa Synthetics, Ward-5(1), Surat. S (Now Known As M/S.Altas Synthetics), . A/10, Mini Silk House, Zampba Bazaar, Surat. [Pan: Aaefa 3407 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh Cit-Dr & Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Surat Dated 05.09.2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Grounds Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,96,27,261/- In Respect Of Unverifiable Creditors & In Giving Directions That The Amount Should Be Added In A.Yr.2006-07 & 2007-08 Despite The Facts That The Assessee Could Not Prove The Genuineness Of The Same In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings As Well As In The Remand Proceedings. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That In Its Return Of Income The Alleged Debtor “M/S. Pamis Tex.Pvt. Ltd.” Has Not Shown The Assessee As Its Page 2 Of 24 Ito, Ward-5(1), Surat Vs. Alfa Synthetics /Ita No.2701/Ahd/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10

section above addition was made The Ld (b) contended that the assessee had created bogus ' advances to suppliers' and thereby equalized the assets and liabilities side of the balance sheet. In respect of above we would like to submit that the accounting policy is based on double accounting system'and all transactions have been gone through by debit and credit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

bogus. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.64,69,000/- on account of unexplained money received back in cash from M/s Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the fact that the digital evidence seized from the premise of the construction company

DIMPAL RAJESHKUMAR PATEL,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, ground No1 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

bogus claims of Long Term Capital Gains or loss (LTCG/LTCL). 2 Dimpal R Patel The assessee was one of the beneficiary of LTGC on sale of one of such companies, which were identified by the investigation wing. On the basis of such information, the case of assessee was re-opened after recording reasons. Notice under section 148 dated

SANDHYA DYES & CHEMICALS,,UMBERGAM vs. THE ADDL.CIT, VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3225/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Sandhya Dyes & Vs. The Additional Commissioner Chemicals, Of Income Tax, Plot No. 1703-B, Sarigam, Vapi Range, Vapi. Gidc, Umbergaon, Gujarat. [Pan: Aalfs 5832 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus claim made before Sandhya Dyes & Chemicals Vs. Addl. CIT, Vapi Range, Vapi/I.T.A. No.3225/Ahd/2015/A.Y.:2011-12 Page 12 of 18 them. Therefore, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Lower Authorities. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the contention of the assessee that the transaction under