SHILPRAJ DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,,SURAT vs. A.C.I.T, , CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2608/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Circle- 4, Vs. 12, Suryakiran Apartment, Ghod-Dod Surat. Road, Surat-395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs3045H (Assessee) (Respondent)

depreciation loss is also allowable to be set-off against this head of income. Therefore, assessing officer issued show cause notice to explain the transaction. 6. In response to show cause notice the assessee submitted reply before the assessing officer. In respect of the income declared during the course of survey it was stated by the assessee that the receipts

SHYAM CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent. Despite such facts and circumstances and specific provisions of law in section 115BBE(2) of the Act, Assessing Officer has completed assessment determining total at Rs.7,88,56,573/- and thereby allowing your erroneous claim to the tune of Rs.31,43,427/-, rendering the assessment

SHIVAM ENTERPRISE,ALTHAN vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent. Despite such facts and circumstances and specific provisions of law in section 115BBE(2) of the Act, Assessing Officer has completed assessment determining total at Rs.7,88,56,573/- and thereby allowing your erroneous claim to the tune of Rs.31,43,427/-, rendering the assessment

SHANTI ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HQ) -1 , SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.271/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shanti Enterprises, Vs. The Dcit (Hq)-1, Millenium Textile Market, Shop Surat. No.1013-14, Umarwada, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfs5217L (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 69A of the I.T. Act and no set off of business loss/depreciation, against this income was allowed to the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order

BALWANT POORANMAL TAYAL,VAPI vs. ITO, VAPI WARD - 1, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Balwant Pooranmal Tayal, I.T.O., 1, Office No. 101, Gitanjali, Plot Ward-1, Vs. No. 32/D 1St Phase Gidc, Vapi. Vapi-396195. Pan No. Aaapt 5199 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

depreciation which is evident in the income tax return. The assessee finally submitted that there is no unaccounted or unexplained cash deposit. Thus, the provision of Section 69A

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

depreciation.” (vi) Ground No.6 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/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 action of assessing officer in making the addition of Rs.51,460/- on account of disallowance

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

depreciation.” (vi) Ground No.6 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/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 action of assessing officer in making the addition of Rs.51,460/- on account of disallowance

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

depreciation.” (vi) Ground No.6 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/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 action of assessing officer in making the addition of Rs.51,460/- on account of disallowance

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

69A of the Act. 26. The AO noted that the balance sheet of the assessee had shown investment in factory shed of Rs. 3,85,741 and flat purchase amount of Rs. 95,251 totaling to Rs. 4,80,992 not shown in the balance sheet for the period under consideration, hence, same was treated as unexplained expenditure under section

SHIVAM DEVELOPERS,GODADRA vs. ITO, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.76/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Shivam Developers, Vs. The Pr. Cit-2, 141, Khodiyar Residency, Surat. Godadra, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acffs4002D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2022

69A of the Act & that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are applicable. 76/SRT/2020/AY.2015-16 Shivam Developers 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in holding that assessee is not eligible to claim deduction of Rs.39,33,270/- on account

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

69A, without appreciating that the assessee had furnished an explanation along with documentary evidence. The addition was made under a deeming provision, and no deliberate concealment of income was established. Hence, the penalty is unjustified. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

69A, without appreciating that the assessee had furnished an explanation along with documentary evidence. The addition was made under a deeming provision, and no deliberate concealment of income was established. Hence, the penalty is unjustified. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty