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.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram

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.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram

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.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram

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.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram

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.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram

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

43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15) (Physical hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots and 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 IT(SS)A Nos. 44, 45, 50 & 122/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15) D.C.I.T., Siddhi Vinayak Knots

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

43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15) (Physical hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots and 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 IT(SS)A Nos. 44, 45, 50 & 122/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15) D.C.I.T., Siddhi Vinayak Knots

ITO, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESHKUMAR LALCHAND JAIN, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.452/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Mukeshkumar Lalchand Jain, 2(3)(8), Room No.407, 4Th Prop. Of M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Floor, Anavil Business Vs. Office No. 401, Floor, H. Centre, Adajan-Hajira Road, No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Adajan, Surat-395009 Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agupj3281A (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

43,06,094/- loan) Total 3,28,72,462/- Therefore, ld DR contended that order passed by the assessing officer may be upheld except unsecured loan of M/s Krishna Diamond P. Ltd. at Rs.43,06,094/- since this amount does not pertain to bogus purchases. However, for remaining purchases/ entries, the Ld. DR submitted that as per section

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

43,02,122/-, however, NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) has restricted the addition @ 6% of the turnover. The Ld. Counsel also stated that whether 6% addition sustained by the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) is on total “turnover” of the assessee or it is on bogus purchases made by the assessee from M/s Rose Gems Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs.10

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

43,02,122/-, however, NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) has restricted the addition @ 6% of the turnover. The Ld. Counsel also stated that whether 6% addition sustained by the NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) is on total “turnover” of the assessee or it is on bogus purchases made by the assessee from M/s Rose Gems Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs.10

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

Sections 68 and 69C of Income tax Act. e) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and taw, the ld. CIT(A) has erred not appreciating that the judgment of Calcutta High Court of in the case of PCIT vs. Premlata Tekriwal (143 taxmann.com 173) involving similar issue of purchase of bogus concern to suppress profits wherein

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

Sections 68 and 69C of Income tax Act. e) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and taw, the ld. CIT(A) has erred not appreciating that the judgment of Calcutta High Court of in the case of PCIT vs. Premlata Tekriwal (143 taxmann.com 173) involving similar issue of purchase of bogus concern to suppress profits wherein

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

bogus purchases. 37. In the result, ground no.3 raised by assessee is partly allowed. 38. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to addition to Rs.19,46,000/-, on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. ITA 1706/AHD/2016/AY.2010-11 (Late) Shri Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora 39. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing submitted

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

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

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad with regards to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on addition made of 5% of total purchase value to the tune of Rs. 43

MANGHARAM MOOLCHAND VERMA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.765/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Mangharam Moolchand Verma Vs. Ito, 703, Smita Park, Sarela Wadi, Ward - 1(3)(3), Ghod Dod Road, Surat – 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpv1629D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Ms. Jayashree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/08/2025

bogus purchase. ITA No.765/SRT/2024 A.Y 2015-16 Mangharam M Verma 3.It is therefore prayed that the above disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The appeal filed

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