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 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

ABHISHEK NAVNITKUMAR DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.530/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Vs. The Ito, 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Ward-2(3)(7), Jin Shanti Building, Surat Surat – 395003, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 12/10/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2023

section 144/147 of the Act on 20.12.2018 determining the assessee’s total income at Rs.1,69,77,514/- by making addition on account of bogus purchases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT vs. ROYAL DEVELOPERS, NR. IP MISSION SCHOOL, MUGLISA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

69 and for making addition under the section, the Ld Assessing Officer cannot act unreasonably, and his satisfaction that a particular transaction is not genuine must be based on relevant factors and on a just and reasonable enquiry. 17. INITAIL BURDEN DICHARGED: The assessee had submitted all the papers and more particularly the registered documents itself contain the recitals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, SURAT vs. SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases of 176 kgs of silver worth Rs.76,00,000/- purchased from M/s Maharishi Traders. The CIT(A) deleted this addition by treating sale consideration of this purchase as part of cash deposit of Rs.36,13,00,112/- in the bank account of Nirav & Co. on which peak credit was held to be taxable. 14.5 In Ground No.10

SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases of 176 kgs of silver worth Rs.76,00,000/- purchased from M/s Maharishi Traders. The CIT(A) deleted this addition by treating sale consideration of this purchase as part of cash deposit of Rs.36,13,00,112/- in the bank account of Nirav & Co. on which peak credit was held to be taxable. 14.5 In Ground No.10

YOGENDRARAJ U. SINGHVI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.459/Srt/2023 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Hybrid Mode) Yogendra Raj U Singhvi, Income Tax Officer-2(3)(8) Cts, 95/4/B-3-4/590, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs Village Dindoshi, Surat-395001 Oberoi Garden City, Flat No. 3902, Floor C-Wing, Meter Exquisite, Mumbai. Pan : Anjps 9745 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

bogus purchases, which was 100% of the disputed purchases. On appeal before ld CIT(A), the 3 Yogendraraj U Singhvi addition was restricted to 5% of entire turnover shown in the profit and loss account vide order dated 19.10.2016. On receipt of the order of CIT(A) dated 19.10.2016 in quantum assessment the assessing officer worked out the disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MAHAVEER SHANTILAL JAIN, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

purchase from alleged concerns was bogus and it was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which has 453/SRT/2019/AY.2013-14 Mahaveer Shantilal Jain been duly substantiated by the statements on oath given by the entry providers. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A), Surat ought to have upheld the order

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be faulted. 23 7. In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 23. We find the Hon’ble Jharkand High Court at Ranchi in the case of CIT Vs. Arun Kumar Agarwal (HUF) & Ors, Tax Appeal

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be faulted. 23 7. In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 23. We find the Hon’ble Jharkand High Court at Ranchi in the case of CIT Vs. Arun Kumar Agarwal (HUF) & Ors, Tax Appeal

CHANDULAL A.SHAH(HUF),SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, Ind for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं././././I.T.A Nos.83 & 84/Srt/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2000-01 & 2004-05 1.Chandulal Amrutlal Shah (Huf), V. Income Tax Officer, Bunglow No.74, Saifee Society, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat. L.H. Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aaahc 8116 R] 2.Chandulal Amrutlal Shah, V. Income Tax Officer, Bunglow No.74, Saifee Society, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat. L.H. Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Adaps 5844 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

bogus capital entry and assets, without any actual transaction has taken place. Therefore, the addition, if any, can be made any respective of one balance sheet for the same period, therefore, the addition of Rs.64,806/- is confirmed and the other addition on amount of Rs.67,535/- is deleted. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. 14. Ground No.2 relates

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 LTCG. However, in assessment order addition was made u/s 68 and u/s 69 of the Act, respectively. Further there was no show cause for charging of tax at 30% as per the mandate of section 115BBE of the Act. Thus, Assessing Officer has violated ITA No.73/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar principal of natural justice. In this regard, ld Counsel relied

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

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

bogus purchases, normally, the name lender or fictitious seller charges a commission and issues sales entries as agreed. The payments are made in cheque and the entry provider returns the amount in cash, or in cheque through a circuitous way, after debiting / retaining his commission amount, ranging between 2 to 5%. But, when the inflation of purchases by the group

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

bogus purchases, normally, the name lender or fictitious seller charges a commission and issues sales entries as agreed. The payments are made in cheque and the entry provider returns the amount in cash, or in cheque through a circuitous way, after debiting / retaining his commission amount, ranging between 2 to 5%. But, when the inflation of purchases by the group

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

bogus purchases, normally, the name lender or fictitious seller charges a commission and issues sales entries as agreed. The payments are made in cheque and the entry provider returns the amount in cash, or in cheque through a circuitous way, after debiting / retaining his commission amount, ranging between 2 to 5%. But, when the inflation of purchases by the group

RAMESH POONAMCHAND BANSAL,RADHA KRISHNA TEXTILE MARKET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.372/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramesh Poonamchand Bansal Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Radha Krishna Textile Ward-2(2)(4), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Market, Ring Road, Surat-395 Bhavan, Surat-395 001 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavpb 6088 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 27.07.2022 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), [in short ‘NFAC/CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, which in turn assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.03.2016. 2. Grounds

BSAS INFOTECH LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back