ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD vs. M/S. MANGALDEEP, VALSAD

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

undisclosed income of Rs.3,37,03,023/- declared during the survey proceedings is business income. Considering these facts, and respectfully following the judgment of ITA.699/SRT/2018 & CO.11/SRT/2021 AYs.2015-16 M/s Mangaldeep jurisdictional Hon'ble, Gujarat High Court in the case of Mahskar General Hospital (supra),we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A).That being

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

undisclosed income. It contains the headwise income upto gross total income and thereafter, there is a column for deduction under Chapter VI. The distinction in Form No. 2 and Form No. 2B is only with regard to column for set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S SURAT LIFE CARE PVT. LTD., SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S. Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3, Unique Hospital, Opp. Kiran Motor, Surat Nr. Sosyo Circle Lane, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarcs8396M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By 14/12/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

undisclosed means has been used for unaccounted investment, as reflected in the loose papers impounded. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 12.10.2013, declaring total loss of Rs.76,07,560. The same included business loss of Rs.23,90,076/- and allowed depreciation

KIRTIPRADA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation and amortization has significantly increased for the year as compared to preceding year as can be seen in the table shown below: Assessment Year. 2012-13 Kritiprada Fashion P Ltd. A.Y. Net Profit/ (Loss) (Rs.) Cash Profit (Rs.) 2011-12 (67,74,595) 18,13,564 2012-13 5,88,362 1,08,82,127 Thus, ld Counsel submits

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

undisclosed income of Rs. 30 lakhs – Considering the fact that assessee was entitled supervision charges only and taking into consideration depreciation

M/S. BASE INDUSTRIES LTD.,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD -1, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation. The action of the Learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and law and deserves to be deleted. 3. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making addition

ACIT,CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. SHRI MOHMEDSADIK A SHAIKH, ANKALESHWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.682/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Mohmedsadik A. Shaikh, Bharuch. Prop. Of Earth Power, Behind Mona Complex, Rajpipla Chowkdi, Ankleshwar-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahzps5638N (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Assessee By : Ms Kinjal V. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-Vadodara-3/10033/2017-18, Dated 30.07.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

undisclosed TDS Rs.26,68,513/- 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has made estimated addition at the rate of 10% of Turnover and deleted other addition made by the Assessing Officer observing as follows: ITA.682/SRT/2019/AY.2014-15 Mohmedsadik A. Shaikh “Once books of accounts are rejected

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

undisclosed short-term capital gain of the assessee. Accordingly, assessment order was finalized u/s.144 rws 147 rws 144B of the Act, determining total income of the assessee at Rs.1,76,39,323/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). During appellate proceedings, CIT(A) observed that investment in immovable property was funded

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

undisclosed short-term capital gain of the assessee. Accordingly, assessment order was finalized u/s.144 rws 147 rws 144B of the Act, determining total income of the assessee at Rs.1,76,39,323/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). During appellate proceedings, CIT(A) observed that investment in immovable property was funded

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

undisclosed income as on-money of the project which is sufficient evidence that declared income is a business income of the project. We have declared on-money of Rs.820,20,000/- for the A. Y. 201 5-1 6 of the projects which is a part of business income of this project. We are not engaged in any other business

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

undisclosed income as on-money of the project which is sufficient evidence that declared income is a business income of the project. We have declared on-money of Rs.820,20,000/- for the A. Y. 201 5-1 6 of the projects which is a part of business income of this project. We are not engaged in any other business

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

undisclosed income/ finding incriminating evidences. The search and seizure action is a rare and uncommon action which to some extent amount to encroaching upon the privacy of private citizen. And therefore such action is taken seldom and with an extreme care and caution and conducted by the highest investigation authority of the department i.e. DDIT

GEETA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT., SURAT

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1322/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Geeta Prints Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 150, Gidc, Pandesara, Vs. Ward -1(1)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat-394 221 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg 88182R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025

undisclosed TDS and also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 4. The learned Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax was not justifying making an addition of Rs.4,37,290/- on account of late payment of employees’ contribution to PF & ESIC and also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 5. The learned Asst. Commissioner

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

undisclosed income u/s.69B investment of Rs.5,35,766/-. 21. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). However, CIT (A) upheld the addition made by the AO. Chandulal A Shah (HUF) v. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1),Surat/ITA. 83 & 84/SRT/2017/A.Y.2000-01 & 2004-05 Page 9 of 15 22. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before