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

deposited in the bank accounts in the period of demonetization remained unexplained treated as alleged unexplained cash 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

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

deposited in the bank accounts in the period of demonetization remained unexplained treated as alleged unexplained cash 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

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

deposited in the bank accounts in the period of demonetization remained unexplained treated as alleged unexplained cash 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

K. N. DIAMOND,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

cash during demonetisation period held that when the assessing officer made inquiries and after considering the material accepted the genuineness of the claim of the assessee, the assessment order is not erroneous. However, the appeal in hand is on better footing, as the assessing officer has made addition of 10% of such ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi

LABDHI JEWELLERD PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

cash during demonetisation period held that when the assessing officer made inquiries and after considering the material accepted the genuineness of the claim of the assessee, the assessment order is not erroneous. However, the appeal in hand is on better footing, as the assessing officer has made addition of 10% of such ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi

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

Cash deposit of Rs. 1,03,000/- deposited on 11/11/2016 was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee deposited Rs. 19.00 lacs

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. HINDUSTAN STEEL AND CEMENT, ALTHAN-BHATAR, SURAT

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.266/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hindustan Steel & Cement, Ward - 2(3)(1), Althan-Bhatar, Plot No. 1D, Sai Surat Ashish Society, Althan Bhatar, University Road, Surat - 394201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaefh 5030 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

deposited the cash in hand in various intervals if the demonetization had not happened is not totally correct. Hence, it is held that the entire interest expenditure was not for the purpose of business within the scope and ambit of section 37 of the Act. It was not laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business

JIGNESH RAJKUMAR MEHTA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Jignesh Rajkumar Mehta, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), 48, Sankalp Society, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. Bhatar, Surat – 395007. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbpm2561Q Assessee By Shri Umesh Dalal, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

disallowed difference, that is, increase in cash. The Assessing Officer compared the cash deposited, with current period, to earlier year

VISHWAS BUILDERS,OPERA PALACE vs. ACIT, CIR 2(2), SURAT, MAJURAGATE, SURAT

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: 2017-2018 Vishwas Builders, Acit, Cir 2(2), Laskana Kholvad Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Gujarat-395004. Vs. Majuragate, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aakfv 9174 A Appellant Respondent

cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period is unexplained and was deposited in the demonetization period is unexplained and was deposited in the demonetization period is unexplained and was deposited in the bank account. The contention of the appellant remained unjustified nt. The contention of the appellant remained unjustified nt. The contention of the appellant remained unjustified

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

disallowance of PF and ESIC of Rs.23,20,130/- and addition of Rs.12,89,25,938/- u/s.68 of the Act. However, the addition made u/s.68 was left out to be added in computation of income hence, same was later added by the AO vide order u/s.154 dated 09.04.2014 of the Act. The AO noticed that the assessee has taken total

HARPALSINH FATESINH DEVDHARA,KOSAMBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Harpalsinh Fatehsinh Devdhara, Vs. The Ito, Hg-7, Diamond Plaza Zin Road Ward- 1, Tarsadi, Kosamba, Dist – Surat, Bardoli Surat – 394120. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bftpd9991J (Appellant) (Respondent)

deposits was out of payments received on distribution of recharge balance to different sales persons. Assessee furnished computation of income, 26AS and copy of response made by him in cash transactions 2016. 4. The assessing officer noted that assessee made partial compliance vide letter dated NIL received through e-assessment portal. Accordingly, another notice

STALIN CHOCKKALINGAM PILLAI,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,VAPI WARD-3,, VAPI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner as indicted above

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.856, 857 & 858/Ahd/2013/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2838 & 2839/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Shri Stalin Chockkalingam Pillai, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No. F-102, Rajmoti Complex, Vapi Ward-3, Chharwada Road, Vapi. Vapi – 396 195. [Pan: Aippp 1728 F] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) (!"थ /Respondent)

cash deposits. In view of Tribunal order for AY 2008-09, we are not convinced with the logic adopted by the AO while disallowing

STALIN CHOCKKALINGAM PILLAI,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,VAPI WARD-3,, VAPI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner as indicted above

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.856, 857 & 858/Ahd/2013/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2838 & 2839/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Shri Stalin Chockkalingam Pillai, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No. F-102, Rajmoti Complex, Vapi Ward-3, Chharwada Road, Vapi. Vapi – 396 195. [Pan: Aippp 1728 F] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) (!"थ /Respondent)

cash deposits. In view of Tribunal order for AY 2008-09, we are not convinced with the logic adopted by the AO while disallowing

STALIN CHOCKKALINGAM PILLAI,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,VAPI WARD-3,, VAPI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner as indicted above

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.856, 857 & 858/Ahd/2013/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2838 & 2839/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Shri Stalin Chockkalingam Pillai, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No. F-102, Rajmoti Complex, Vapi Ward-3, Chharwada Road, Vapi. Vapi – 396 195. [Pan: Aippp 1728 F] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) (!"थ /Respondent)

cash deposits. In view of Tribunal order for AY 2008-09, we are not convinced with the logic adopted by the AO while disallowing

SHRI STALIN CHOCKKALINGAM PILLAI,,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,VAPI WARD-3,, VAPI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner as indicted above

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.856, 857 & 858/Ahd/2013/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2838 & 2839/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Shri Stalin Chockkalingam Pillai, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No. F-102, Rajmoti Complex, Vapi Ward-3, Chharwada Road, Vapi. Vapi – 396 195. [Pan: Aippp 1728 F] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) (!"थ /Respondent)

cash deposits. In view of Tribunal order for AY 2008-09, we are not convinced with the logic adopted by the AO while disallowing

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. R K SHAH PROJECTS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.55/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S R.K.Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aditya Complex, Nr. Tax., Circle-2(1)(1), Room No.216, Vs. Kapadia Health Club, Bhatar Road, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 8584 Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

cash deposits of Rs.5 lacs in his bank account was duly explained. Thus, the evidences filed during assessment as well as remand proceedings support assessee's contention of unsecured loans explained as per requirement of sec. 68 of the Act. ITA No.55/SRT/2020 A.Y. 13-14 M/s R.K. Shah Project Pvt. Ltd (iv) The assessee's reliance on the decision

YOGESHKUMAR BABUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Yogeshkumar Babubhai Patel, I.T.O., 48, Rajput Faliya, Kumbhariya Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Gam, Punagam, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Anmpp 0363 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

cash deposited and disallowance of Agriculture Income without appreciating the satisfactory explanation on source of cash deposited and Agriculture Income

RAVI SHANKAR HARI MALPANI,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.926/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Shankar Hari Malpani, Vs. The Acit, 1009/10, Ambaji Market, Near Kamela Circle – 1(2), Darwaja, Salabatpura, Surat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afspm7945K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025

disallowance of 10% of cash generated during demonetization period would meet the ends of justice. In the present case, there are cash deposits