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

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

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

57, 397/- 8. Jay Fabrics Rs. 2,55,720/- Total Rs.28,82,709/- (i)Amount of purchases proposed to be disallowed vide show cause notice dated 04.03.2013 Rs.5,12,93,518/- (ii)Considered as 10 confirmations received from party of Purchases from the date of issue of show cause till date of order. Rs.47,98,575/- (iii)Considered on account

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

Section 148 of the Act. However, in response to notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not file return of income. During the course of 148 proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that a search and seizure action was carried out in the Shri Rajendra Jain Group on 03.10.2013 which proved that the said group, through a layer

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

Section 148 of the Act. However, in response to notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not file return of income. During the course of 148 proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that a search and seizure action was carried out in the Shri Rajendra Jain Group on 03.10.2013 which proved that the said group, through a layer

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

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

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

MANJU GEMS,SURAT vs. THE INCOME-TAX, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT., SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Diesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 69C of the Act and also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same The ld AO has erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,26,57,724/-being a bogus and non- genuine purchase

NARESHBHAI ARJANBHAI LATHIYA,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.909/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Nareshbhai Arjanbhai Lathiya, Vs. Acit, 317, Regal Diamond Centre, Tata Circle – 3(3), Road No. 1 &2 Opera House, Surat Mumbai - 400004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adlpp8388A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/06/2025

section 69C of the Act are not applicable in case of the appellant. In the alternative, it was submitted that when sales are recorded, the entire purchase cannot be added and only the profit component embedded in the purchases can be disallowed. For this, the appellant relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case

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. 14. 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, therefore he made cash purchases only up to 4% of the total purchases. During the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer issued show cause notice, however the assessee could not submit the entire details

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus LTCS/STCL Scam. The Assessing Officer also discussed in the assessment order the features of penny stocks. The Assessing Officer also observed that assessee is one such beneficiary who has allegedly taken the entry of LTCG. The Assessing Officer has issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain the transaction. 12. In response to the show cause notice

KALAMANDIR JEWELLERS LIMITED,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

57,940/-.\n4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A).\nDuring the appellate proceedings, the assessee was given three opportunities\non 13.05.2024, 25.05.2024 and 28.05.2024. The appellant furnished\ndocumentary evidence like ledger of OM Jewellers, invoice copy, GST portal\nscreenshot. The documentary evidence provided by the appellant had not been\nfurnished before