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

credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (ii) Ground No.2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, are as follows: “2. 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 the action of the assessing officer

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

unexplained cash credit, hence she prayed the Bench that addition made by the assessing officer may be sustained. 7. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings

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 of the Act is not applicable. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee and the contents of assessment order, upheld the order of Assessing Officer by taking

PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.261/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pragati Glass Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Income V Kharach, Kosamba (R.S), Tax, Circle-1, Vadadora. S. Dist. Bharuch-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcp7377H (Assessee) (Respondent)

unexplained cash credit being the amount received from issuance of shares. The AO examined this issue at length and noticed that the assessee had shown investment in shares in the name of M/s. Nakshatra Electricals and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. at Rs.25 lakhs. On perusal of the return of income of M/s. Nakshatra Electricals and Engineers Pvt. Ltd., it was noticed

JAYANTILAL VALLABHBHAI RAMOLIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2017 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Jayantilal Vallabhbhai Income Tax Officer, Ramoliya, 33-134, Miranagar Ward-3(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Society, Varachha Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No. Abipr 3365 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

unexplained cash credits. 4. The Assessing Officer further noted that assessee has also shown unsecured loan of Rs.11,62,720/- form three persons. The assessee has submitted that he has received loan of Rs.3,62,720/- from Deepak Desani, Rs.5.00 lakh from Meenaben V Andani and Rs.3.00 lakh from Shivabhai Rajani. The Assessing Officer recorded that no confirmation, income

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J B SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.140/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2023

unexplained share capital/premium and added u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of share capital received from first three share applicants, holding that there were no difference

SAMIR YOGENDRABHAI PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

unexplained cash credit. The assessee made deposit during demonetization period of Rs. 33,88,800/- which includes deposit of Rs. 22,62,500/-. The ld. Pr.CIT further recorded that it was imperative on the part of Assessing Officer to verify if the accounting of receipt and payment had been done properly or not. The assessee has provided bills

SHREE SALASAR SAREES,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1154/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Salasar Sarees Vs. Ito, D-1401, Raghukul Textile Market, Ward – 1(2)(6), Ring Road, Surat – 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abqfs5653Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

unexplained cash credits and added the same to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 7. The AO further observed that the assessee had sold a land situated at Shed No.319, Survey No. 79/P, Block No.80/P, Pandesara, GIDC, Surat for an amount of Rs.80,00,001/- on 03.02.2015 vide the deed no. 1378/2015 out of which

MUKESH RAJENDRA PRASAD THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Mukesh Rajendra Prasad Assistant Commissioner Of Thakur Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vs 3-9-9R Navjivan Society, Room No.708, 7Th Floor, Lamington Road, Mumbai- Fortune Square-Ii, Chala, 400008 Daman Road, Vapi-396191 Pan : Aarpt 3055 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

unexplained cash credit. The 3 Mukesh Rajendra Prasad Thakur assessing Officer further noted that assessee has shown to have purchased vehicle at Rs.12,51,651/- and claimed depreciation

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

credit, resulting in excess penalty. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the AO failed to correctly reduce the penalty in the appeal effect order, as the tax impact of the deleted addition of ₹70,50,000/- was not fully considered. Your appellant further reserves his right to add, alter or to amend

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

credit, resulting in excess penalty. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the AO failed to correctly reduce the penalty in the appeal effect order, as the tax impact of the deleted addition of ₹70,50,000/- was not fully considered. Your appellant further reserves his right to add, alter or to amend

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

unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer noted that nobody attended the hearing nor furnished any confirmation. Thus, the 7 ITA No.1581/AHD/2013 (AY 13-14)& M/s Base Inds. Ltd. assessee failed to discharge its onus. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.7.31 crores under 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer

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

credit by the suppliers (usually from Hong Kong and Dubai) in the name of companies at the instance of the actual importer. On receipt of consignments in the name of my company, the real importer gets the actual delivery of diamonds from the Clearing Housing Agents (CHA) on the basis of my authority letter and declaration from. The payments