INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(6), SURAT vs. SHRI ABHISHEK NAVNITKUMAR DOSHI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 21/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Vs. Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/12/2022 09/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

unexplained peak credit in respect of bogus purchases. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and various judicial precedents on the issue involved, I direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the total purchase value of Rs.2,50,25,283/-. The appellant gets partial relief on this account. The ground no. 2 raised

ABHISHEK NAVNITKUMAR DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD. 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. 21/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2012-13) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Vs. Abhishek Navnitkumar Doshi, 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Surat. Jin Shanti Building, Jada Khadi, Mahidharpura – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpd0064M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/12/2022 09/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

unexplained peak credit in respect of bogus purchases. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and various judicial precedents on the issue involved, I direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the total purchase value of Rs.2,50,25,283/-. The appellant gets partial relief on this account. The ground no. 2 raised

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

investment made in stock. 8. It is also important to note here that copy of general stock register was furnished with written submission dated 10.12.2012. This submission was made without taking into consideration of inventory of stock and statement recorded. For variation of value in inventory/statement and general stock register a show cause notice was issued on 04.03.2013. When assessee

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

UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT in PROPERTY. She had disregarded the submission of the assessee regarding purchase of the property in earlier years i.e. 2010 to 2013. The recital in the documents registered as above with regard to the payments received and the possession has also been brushed aside by her. The Ld Assessing Officer had at the end of para 6 (Bold

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

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

purchase and sale transactions of shares of GLOBAL CAPITAL MARKET LIMITED are proved genuine by third party evidences - bank, broker; DP-demat account, and in the absence of any material to prove cash changing hands in the transaction, the addition made by the assessing officer under section 68 of the Act, by treating the sale consideration as unexplained, sham

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)

investment for bogus purchase of the goods. The purchases and sales both are required to be omitted in such case and as assessee has shown the profit on this transaction, there cannot be any addition. The CIT(A) deleted this addition on the ground that he already confirmed the addition of Rs.4 crores relating to the sales shown

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)

investment for bogus purchase of the goods. The purchases and sales both are required to be omitted in such case and as assessee has shown the profit on this transaction, there cannot be any addition. The CIT(A) deleted this addition on the ground that he already confirmed the addition of Rs.4 crores relating to the sales shown

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)

investments made in penny stock. 7.1. In order to prove the purchase of shares, the assessee filed copy of the allotment letter, ledger account of Conart Tarders Ltd. physical share certificate, copy of the bank statement reflecting payments made for purchase of SAL shares. Similarly, for Sale of shares, the sale were being routed through demat account. Copy

DHAVAL INDRAVADAN GANDHI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shri Dhaval Indravadan Gandhi, Ito Ward-2, At & Post Areth, Tal Mandvi, Aayakar Bhavan, Janta Nagar Surat-394160. Vs. Society, Bardoli-394601. Pan No. Ajjpg 4246 J Appellant Respondent

unexplained investment in shares of Rs. 12,64,005/-. 2.0(b) Without prejudice to above 2.0(b) Without prejudice to above grounds, that on the facts grounds, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. and in the circumstances

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

investment was not bogus. The shares were purchased in order to\ninvest and not for the purpose of earning exempted income by frequent trading in\nshort time.\n38. We note that above judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of\nJagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai (supra) is binding judgment, on the Tribunal situated in\nGujarat

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI JETHABHAI DANABHAI VADHER, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas assessee’s

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am

unexplained investment in LIC policies, by accepting the submission of the assessee that the investment of Rs.97,771/- was made by his spouse and investment of Rs.28,859/- was made in the next F.Y i.e. 2014-15 without considering the fact that the investment made by his spouse is not allowable as per law and also Rs.28,859/- was paid

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

unexplained investment. Specific cases of such\ndifference in valuation vis-à-vis actual purchase cost paid by assessee have\nbeen pointed out and considered by the CIT(A) in Para 9.2 of appeal order. The\nLd. AR also argued that the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 also contemplates the\nreconciliation of jewellery in quantity terms and not in value terms

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

KAMLESH KUMAR GADIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

purchased offline but the same was acquired through banking channel. The Assessing Officer has further noted that the assessee is not a regular trader or investor in the shares. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has entered into above share transaction though above mentioned circular trading to take accommodation entry of bogus exempted long term capital gain. The Assessing

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)

bogus purchases u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. ITA No.372/SRT/2024 A.Y 13-14 Ramesh P Bansal 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs.68,07,172/- on account of alleged unaccounted stock