INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL PUKHRAJ JAIN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.89/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Anil Pukhraj Jain, Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206-2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent)/ "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q ""या"ेप सं Cross Objection No.10/Srt/2021 (A/O Ita No.89/Srt/2017) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) Anil Pukhraj Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206- 2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Vs. Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. Appellant/Co-Objector (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2023

145(2) and the assessment is completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act For the reason discussed above, assessee's contention is rejected and as the assessee failed to explained that the purchase worth Rs.17,41,74,472/- are the genuine purchases therefore appropriate addition on ITA 89/SRT/2017 & CO. 10/SRT/2021/AY.2008-09 Anil Pukhraj Jain account of bogus

N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

depreciation @ 80%. During the period relevant to the AY 2008-09, Suman Paper & Board and NR Paper & Board, the group companies of the assessee were amalgamated with the assessee and become third power plant (Unit-III). A search action under 3 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 section 132 of Income

THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VAPI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

depreciation @ 80%. During the period relevant to the AY 2008-09, Suman Paper & Board and NR Paper & Board, the group companies of the assessee were amalgamated with the assessee and become third power plant (Unit-III). A search action under 3 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 section 132 of Income

M/S. JAY KESAR BHAVANI DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ITOI,WD.1(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1196/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Jay Kesar Bhavani V. Income Tax Officer, Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(3) Surat A-48,Kesar Kunj, Shri Bhulabhai Desai Marg, Laxmikant Ashram Road Katargam Surat 395004 Pan:Aabcj 6278 P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

145(3) of the Act. The AO has observed that total receipts as per impounded Page No. 5 to 39 of annexure B-I is at Rs.10,39,86,000 whereas in the return of income same has been shown at Rs.5,67,83,632 Hence, gross receipts are shown less by Rs.4,72,02,368. The AO further observed

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

145(2) of the Act, are as follows: (i) Ground No.2 raised by the assessee in ITA No.194/SRT/22 and Ground No.4 raised by the assessee in ITA No.193/SRT/22, are as follows: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming

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

145(2) of the Act, are as follows: (i) Ground No.2 raised by the assessee in ITA No.194/SRT/22 and Ground No.4 raised by the assessee in ITA No.193/SRT/22, are as follows: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming

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

145(2) of the Act, are as follows: (i) Ground No.2 raised by the assessee in ITA No.194/SRT/22 and Ground No.4 raised by the assessee in ITA No.193/SRT/22, are as follows: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. LEMON TECHNOMIST PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

145(3) of the I.T. Act in this case? 2. Whether on the fact and the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 9,12,600/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act without appreciating the assessee is liable to deduct TDS of payment made

KAMAL KISHORE SONI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

145 of the Income Tax Act. Based on these facts, assessing officer made addition of Rs.18,25,71,074/- (i.e. 25% of the bogus purchases of Rs.73,03,27,096) under section 69 C of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

KAMAL KISHORE SONI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

145 of the Income Tax Act. Based on these facts, assessing officer made addition of Rs.18,25,71,074/- (i.e. 25% of the bogus purchases of Rs.73,03,27,096) under section 69 C of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. KAMAL KISHORE SONI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

145 of the Income Tax Act. Based on these facts, assessing officer made addition of Rs.18,25,71,074/- (i.e. 25% of the bogus purchases of Rs.73,03,27,096) under section 69 C of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. KAMAL KISHORE SONI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

145 of the Income Tax Act. Based on these facts, assessing officer made addition of Rs.18,25,71,074/- (i.e. 25% of the bogus purchases of Rs.73,03,27,096) under section 69 C of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

KAMAL KISHORE SONI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

145 of the Income Tax Act. Based on these facts, assessing officer made addition of Rs.18,25,71,074/- (i.e. 25% of the bogus purchases of Rs.73,03,27,096) under section 69 C of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. KAMAL KISHORE SONI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

145 of the Income Tax Act. Based on these facts, assessing officer made addition of Rs.18,25,71,074/- (i.e. 25% of the bogus purchases of Rs.73,03,27,096) under section 69 C of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARIVS.SHRI KHEMCHANDBHAI KUNGMAL THARWANI,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2867-2869/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shri Rajesh Khemchand Tharwani, Tax, Navsari Circle, Room L/H Lt. Shri Khemchandbhai Vs. No./302, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Kungmal Tharwani, Prop. Of K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Gidc, Charpool Police Chowki, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3135/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Shri Khemchand Kangumal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tharwani, By L/R Rajesh Tax, Navsari Circle, Room No./302, Vs. Khemchand Tharwani, Prop. Of M/S Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Charpool K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Police Chowki, Lunsikui, Gidc, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent)

depreciation. Whether the provision of section 150(1) 10 applicable, if the reply is in the affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated against No. 11 and it may be brought out that the proviso of section 150(2) would not stand in N.A. the way of initiating provisions of section 148. 11. Reasons for the belief that income

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARIVS.SHRI KHEMCHANDBHAI KUNGMAL THARWANI,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2867-2869/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shri Rajesh Khemchand Tharwani, Tax, Navsari Circle, Room L/H Lt. Shri Khemchandbhai Vs. No./302, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Kungmal Tharwani, Prop. Of K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Gidc, Charpool Police Chowki, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3135/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Shri Khemchand Kangumal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tharwani, By L/R Rajesh Tax, Navsari Circle, Room No./302, Vs. Khemchand Tharwani, Prop. Of M/S Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Charpool K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Police Chowki, Lunsikui, Gidc, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent)

depreciation. Whether the provision of section 150(1) 10 applicable, if the reply is in the affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated against No. 11 and it may be brought out that the proviso of section 150(2) would not stand in N.A. the way of initiating provisions of section 148. 11. Reasons for the belief that income

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARIVS.SHRI KHEMCHANDBHAI KUNGMAL THARWANI,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2867-2869/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shri Rajesh Khemchand Tharwani, Tax, Navsari Circle, Room L/H Lt. Shri Khemchandbhai Vs. No./302, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Kungmal Tharwani, Prop. Of K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Gidc, Charpool Police Chowki, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3135/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Shri Khemchand Kangumal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tharwani, By L/R Rajesh Tax, Navsari Circle, Room No./302, Vs. Khemchand Tharwani, Prop. Of M/S Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Charpool K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Police Chowki, Lunsikui, Gidc, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent)

depreciation. Whether the provision of section 150(1) 10 applicable, if the reply is in the affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated against No. 11 and it may be brought out that the proviso of section 150(2) would not stand in N.A. the way of initiating provisions of section 148. 11. Reasons for the belief that income

KHEMCHAND KANGUMAL THARWANI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2867-2869/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shri Rajesh Khemchand Tharwani, Tax, Navsari Circle, Room L/H Lt. Shri Khemchandbhai Vs. No./302, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Kungmal Tharwani, Prop. Of K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Gidc, Charpool Police Chowki, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3135/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Shri Khemchand Kangumal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tharwani, By L/R Rajesh Tax, Navsari Circle, Room No./302, Vs. Khemchand Tharwani, Prop. Of M/S Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Charpool K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Police Chowki, Lunsikui, Gidc, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent)

depreciation. Whether the provision of section 150(1) 10 applicable, if the reply is in the affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated against No. 11 and it may be brought out that the proviso of section 150(2) would not stand in N.A. the way of initiating provisions of section 148. 11. Reasons for the belief that income