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)

bogus- Tribunal held that entire quantity of opening stock, purchases and quantity manufactured were sold by the assessee thus finished goods were purchased by assessee, may be not from the parties shown in accounts, but from other sources-Thus not entire amount, but profit margin embedded m such amount would be subjected to tax-Held” c) CIT vs. President Industries

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)

bogus- Tribunal held that entire quantity of opening stock, purchases and quantity manufactured were sold by the assessee thus finished goods were purchased by assessee, may be not from the parties shown in accounts, but from other sources-Thus not entire amount, but profit margin embedded m such amount would be subjected to tax-Held” c) CIT vs. President Industries

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)

bogus- Tribunal held that entire quantity of opening stock, purchases and quantity manufactured were sold by the assessee thus finished goods were purchased by assessee, may be not from the parties shown in accounts, but from other sources-Thus not entire amount, but profit margin embedded m such amount would be subjected to tax-Held” c) CIT vs. President Industries

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), SURAT vs. M/S. KHAZANA BAZAR PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.333/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. M/S. Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Surat. C-104, Radha Raman Textile Market, Saroli, Surat- 395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck0726P (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.334/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), C-104, Radha Raman Textile Surat. Market, Saroli, Surat- 395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck0726P (Assessee) (Respondent)

bogus purchases as against disallowance made by the AO at the rate of 100% of such purchases amounting to Rs.2,26,10,841/- ignoring the facts that these purchases are non-genuine transactions as the assesse failed to substantiate his claim of genuine purchase during assessment proceedings as well as during appeal proceedings by furnishing documentary evidences

KHAZANA BAZAR PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.333/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. M/S. Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Surat. C-104, Radha Raman Textile Market, Saroli, Surat- 395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck0726P (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.334/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), C-104, Radha Raman Textile Surat. Market, Saroli, Surat- 395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck0726P (Assessee) (Respondent)

bogus purchases as against disallowance made by the AO at the rate of 100% of such purchases amounting to Rs.2,26,10,841/- ignoring the facts that these purchases are non-genuine transactions as the assesse failed to substantiate his claim of genuine purchase during assessment proceedings as well as during appeal proceedings by furnishing documentary evidences

DIYA FABRICS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

purchases made from the said creditor has not been treated as bogus. We note that Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue on merit based on the evidences submitted by assessee and the material on record and therefore order passed by ld CIT(A) cannot be treated as an ex parte order, hence matter cannot be remitted back

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

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

MURTUJA HUSAINBHAI HIRANI,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, , NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Murtuja Hussainbhai Hirani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3, Prop. Of R. K. Bullion, Navsari Shop No.5, Pranav Chamber Madhumati, Navsari – 396445, Gujarat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aciph3680D Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 09/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

bogus. The Ld. Counsel further stated that assessee made an agreement for cash purchases of the gold from various customers, since the assessee is trading in gold items, therefore he made minor cash purchases, which is only 4% of the total purchases hence the amount of cash purchase is very insignificant. Besides, the assessee made purchases in the course

RAJESH PODDAR,SURAT vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

Section\n292C of the assessee.\n(8) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-\n4, Surat ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.\n(9) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and\nthat the AO may be restored

KAMAKSHI DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED ,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.841/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Kamakshi Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ Office No.203, 2Nd Floor 1(1)(3), Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. Panchratna Apartment, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Dalgrya Sheri, Mahindrapura, Hospital, Surat-395 001 Surat-395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeck 0477 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By None राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/03/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 02.07.2024 by the CIT(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2018-19, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 25.03.2023. Grounds

MEDINNOVA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1241/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Medinnova Systems Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Previously Known Soma Tech. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat, Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) 301, Soham House, Current Jurisdiction Ward- Opp. St Xaviers School, Ghod 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Aaykar Dod Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Race Course, Circle, Vadodara-390 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakcs 5265 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 05.11.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated

NIRALKUMAR K. SHAH,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-6,, VAPI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Niralkumar K Shah, I.T.O., B-001, Sharddha Co.Op Hsg. Soc., Ward-6, Vs. Gunan Road, Ta-Pardi, Valsad. Vapi. M. No. 9913800836 E Mail-Parinshahca@Gmail.Com Pan No. Bvjps 2700 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

54,970/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has debited commission expenses paid to Shri Chintan K Shah of Rs. 4,87,354/- and Shri Kishorekumar K Shah of Rs. 3,75,049/-. Commission was paid on sales. The Assessing Officer prepaid the summary of such commission

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. M/S. DAGINA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., , SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

54 for had mismatch of all entries. Thus, on verification of the entire sales identified by the assessing officer as bogus sales booked by the assessee on the basis of mismatch of dates of bills vis-a-vis the dates of entry in the computer, there is no such mismatch in several entries whose aggregate sales comes to Rs.6

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

54 for had mismatch of all entries. Thus, on verification of the entire sales identified by the assessing officer as bogus sales booked by the assessee on the basis of mismatch of dates of bills vis-a-vis the dates of entry in the computer, there is no such mismatch in several entries whose aggregate sales comes to Rs.6

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

54 for had mismatch of all entries. Thus, on verification of the entire sales identified by the assessing officer as bogus sales booked by the assessee on the basis of mismatch of dates of bills vis-a-vis the dates of entry in the computer, there is no such mismatch in several entries whose aggregate sales comes to Rs.6

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

54 for had mismatch of all entries. Thus, on verification of the entire sales identified by the assessing officer as bogus sales booked by the assessee on the basis of mismatch of dates of bills vis-a-vis the dates of entry in the computer, there is no such mismatch in several entries whose aggregate sales comes to Rs.6