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

demonetization period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 to the tune of Rs.3,04,72,900/-. The Assessing Officer noted that payment received by petrol pump owner would include both new notes as well as old notes and therefore Assessing Officer disallowed

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

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 and unsubstantiated. Hence, the ground is noted as disallowed

MANJULABEN MADHUBHAI HAPANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD3(2)(5), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.543/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Manjulaben Madhubhai Hapani, Vs. The Ito, 12, D. M. Park, Opp. Jkp Nagar Ward – 3(2)(5), Katargam, Singanpore Road, Surat Surat – 395004, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aciph8744A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/02/2025

demonetization period and filed for earlier years. The AO allowed agricultural income of Rs.2,00,000/- each for AYs.2016-17 and 2017-18 and asked assessee as to why the excess amount of Rs.10,09,859/- (Rs.4,92,062 + Rs.5,17,797) should not be disallowed

HASMUKH KANJIBHAI TADHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Hasmukh Kanjibhai Tadhani, Vs. The Ito, 170, Vaikunth Dham Society, Ward – 3(3)(3), Laxmikant Ashram Road, Surat Katargam, Surat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafpt1257K (Appellant) (Respondent)

demonetization period was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and accordingly the same was added to the total income of the assessee. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, observing as follows

MAGANLAL HARICHAND SONI,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD ONE BARODOLI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Maganlal Harichand Soni, I.T.O., Main Bazar, Zankhwav, Ward-1, Vs. Surat-394440. Bardoli. Pan No. Bkcps 6931 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

demonetization period, the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 12.15 lacs in his bank account with Bank of Baroda. The assessee was show caused to substantiate the source of cash deposit. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that during the assessment, he explained the fact that the assessee has declared on presumptive basis under Section 44AD

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

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. Hence, it would be reasonable if 25% of the interest

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

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 commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

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

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 commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

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

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 commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, SURAT vs. SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

demonetization only that too without proper KYC documents and hence, its existence was also in doubt and the assessee has also failed to furnish any details or evidences to prove the genuineness of these transfer entries found in its bank account. [ix] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred

SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

demonetization only that too without proper KYC documents and hence, its existence was also in doubt and the assessee has also failed to furnish any details or evidences to prove the genuineness of these transfer entries found in its bank account. [ix] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred

AMRITA GEM PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1& 2 of the appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Amrita Gem Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O. 405, Devratna Apartment, Char Ward-1(1)(1), Vs. Khana Chakla, Rampura Main Road, Surat. Surat-395006 (Gujarat) Pan No. Aahca 8682 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

demonetization period. Still we find some merit in the submissions of ld AR of the assessee that the purchases of the assessee was not doubted and the books of account of assessee was not rejected, therefore, in our view, the entire sales, though it is doubted, cannot be rejected. Therefore, keeping in view the facts that neither the assessee could

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. SUNIL MITTAL HUF , 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.520/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Sunil Mittal Huf, Ward – 1(3)(1), 101, Mahadev Park, Kailash Nagar, Surat Ghod Dod Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamhs7185Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 15/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

disallowed by assessing officer, that is, 13.05% of Rs.75,10,503/-. 520/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Sunil Mittal HUF 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue, argued that Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessing officer has already

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

disallowance of Agriculture Income without appreciating the satisfactory explanation on source of cash deposited and Agriculture Income. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal before hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income

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

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 to the patient against the various services rendered in April

BALUBHAI BRIJBHUKHANDAS CHOKSI,NA vs. ARIVS.PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhai Brijbhukhandas Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-Valsad, Room No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Choksi, Mota Bazar, Vs. Navsari-396445 Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifb 9804 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-D.R

demonetization 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 ITA No.119/SRT/2022 A.Y.17-18 Balubhai B. Choksi made addition of 10% of such deposits

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

demonetization during the assessment under consideration should not lead to presumption that this transaction is abnormal and suspicious. The assessee provided the details with date of sales, name of customers, address of customers, description of sales gross weight of jewellery, diamond weight and amount utilized on such sales. The assessee took plea that as per Rule 114B of the Income

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

demonetization during the assessment under consideration should not lead to presumption that this transaction is abnormal and suspicious. The assessee provided the details with date of sales, name of customers, address of customers, description of sales gross weight of jewellery, diamond weight and amount utilized on such sales. The assessee took plea that as per Rule 114B of the Income