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

124 taxmann.com 563 (Delhi Tribunal) and Geo Connect Ltd. vs. DCIT, 2896/Del/2018 has taken note of judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts on the schematic interpretation of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and observed that the considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors embedded in provisions of Section

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

124 taxmann.com 563 (Delhi Tribunal) and Geo Connect Ltd. vs. DCIT, 2896/Del/2018 has taken note of judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts on the schematic interpretation of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and observed that the considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors embedded in provisions of Section

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

124 taxmann.com 563 (Delhi Tribunal) and Geo Connect Ltd. vs. DCIT, 2896/Del/2018 has taken note of judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts on the schematic interpretation of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and observed that the considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors embedded in provisions of Section

RAJLAXMI POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, SURAT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Vs Rajlaxmi Polymers Pvt Ltd, Income Tax Officer, 5024,World Trade Centre, Ward -2 (1)(1), Near Udhna Darwaja, Surat, Ring Road, Surat-395002 Pan : Aabcr 1210 M Assessee Revenue Assessee By Sh. Sapnesh Sheth Ca/Ar Revenue By Ms. Anupma Singla Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2020

2) Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of ₹ 13,94,350/-debited under the head of sales promotion expenses ignoring documentary evidences submitted by the appellant. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have allowed the expenses considering it as business expenditure under section 37 of IT Act. It be so held now. 6. We have

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. S D MATERIAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

2) CIT v. Narendra Doshi [2002] 122 Taxman 717/254 ITR 606 (SC) (3) CIT v. Shivsagar Estate [2002] 124 Taxman 606/257 ITR 59 (SC) 31. The above judgements of the Supreme Court show the anxiety to prevent the income- tax authorities from taking different stand in the case of different assessee in respect of the same issue or taking different

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

2,62,627 which is contrary to the facts and law. 110. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the AO observed that the assessee has debited sale promotion expenses of Rs.2,26,078 which included expenditure on gift to foreign clients, organizer diary etc. claimed to have incurred to development

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

2,62,627 which is contrary to the facts and law. 110. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the AO observed that the assessee has debited sale promotion expenses of Rs.2,26,078 which included expenditure on gift to foreign clients, organizer diary etc. claimed to have incurred to development

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

2 relates to deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,697 crore under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source 23 ITA No.431-432/SRT/2018 & CO 12/SRT/2021 (A.Ys 07-08 & 12-13) M/s Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. on the discount given to dealers. The ld AR for the assessee submits that this ground of appeal is also covered

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

2 relates to deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,697 crore under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source 23 ITA No.431-432/SRT/2018 & CO 12/SRT/2021 (A.Ys 07-08 & 12-13) M/s Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. on the discount given to dealers. The ld AR for the assessee submits that this ground of appeal is also covered

MS KALAMANDIR JEWELLERS LTD. ,SURAT vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

124 Kalamandir House\nGhod Dod Road Near Indoor\nStadium, Athwa Sura, Gujarat-\n395007\nPAN NO. AADCK 6700 F\nAppellant\nAssessee by\nRevenue by\nThe Asst. Commissioner Of\nIncome Tax- Circle 1(1)(1)\nVs. Aayakar Bhavan,\nMajuragate, Surat- 395001\nRespondent\nMr. Sapnesh Sheth, Adv\nDate of Hearing\nDate of pronouncement\nORDER\nMr. Ajay Uke, Sr-DR\n08/10/2025\n23/12/2025\nPER

SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

124 taxmann.com 249 (SC) held that: “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Recording of satisfaction) - High Court by impugned order held that recording of satisfaction by Assessing Officer that there was concealment of income or that any inaccurate particulars were furnished by assessee was sine qua non for initiation of penalty

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

124 taxmann.com 249 (SC) held that: “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Recording of satisfaction) - High Court by impugned order held that recording of satisfaction by Assessing Officer that there was concealment of income or that any inaccurate particulars were furnished by assessee was sine qua non for initiation of penalty

THE ITO, WARD-7(3),, SURAT vs. SHRI RAJKUMAR GOYAL, SURAT

In the result this ground of appeal is also rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1487/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajkumar Goyal, Ward-7(3), Surat. Prop. Of Balaji Corporation, 201, Keshri Nandan Apartment, Bhothia Sheri, Rughnathpura, Surat – 395003. [Pan: Adtpj 2924 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 17.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 29.03.2012 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Unverifiable Purchase Amounting To Rs. 7,91,01,863/-. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of In Difference In Closing Balance Of Rs.8,05,11,522/-. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Be Set Aside & The Assessing Officer ‘S Order Be Restored.”

2) completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 on 29.12.2011. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order besides the other additions, made addition of Rs. 7,91,01,863/- by taking view that the assessee has shown purchases of Rs. 31.64 Crore from Sagun Impex, Nakoda Gems and Sunrise Impex. The assessing officer issued notice

HOTEL SKYLINE PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, BHARUCH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are ( ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.690 & 691/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1), Bharuch Skyline Building, Old N.H. Vs. Nop.8, Nr. Hotel Maharaja, Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach 5317 A (Assessee) (Respondent)

124 (SC). 2) Your assessee respectfully alternatively and without prejudice submit that interest expenditure of Rs.14,74,654/-/ be allowed u/s 36(i)(iii) or Section 28 of the Act or under Section 37(1) it being incurred during course of business and for purposes of business. 3) It is further submitted by your assessee that he had enough hand

HOTEL SKYLINE PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, BHARUCH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are ( ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.690 & 691/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1), Bharuch Skyline Building, Old N.H. Vs. Nop.8, Nr. Hotel Maharaja, Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach 5317 A (Assessee) (Respondent)

124 (SC). 2) Your assessee respectfully alternatively and without prejudice submit that interest expenditure of Rs.14,74,654/-/ be allowed u/s 36(i)(iii) or Section 28 of the Act or under Section 37(1) it being incurred during course of business and for purposes of business. 3) It is further submitted by your assessee that he had enough hand

CHAITALI SURIL UDESHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no. 3 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Chaitali Suril Udeshi, I.T.O., A-902, Samanvay Residency, Opp: Safal Ward-3(1)(2), Vs. Parisar-2, South Bopal Daskroi, Surat. Ahmedabad, Gujarat (India). Pan No. Ahgpd 9813 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowed the entire deduction of Rs. 28.00 lacs. 5. Aggrieved by the reopening as well as addition in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission. The submission of assessee is recorded in para 4 of order of ld. CIT(A). Besides challenging the reopening

RAJHANS METALS,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PR. CIT-1,, VALSAD

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

disallowances should be made, if the assessee is unable to establish the direct nexus of the funds diverted/invested for investments in the instruments which yield tax exempt income. The ld. PCIT also asked the assessee to produce five parties viz. Uday Earth Movers, Maruti Infrastructure, Vijaybhai C. Patel, Raj Suppliers and Shantilal Patel. In this regard assessee stated vide letter

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY HUF,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-4,, SURAT

In the result all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1364 &1366/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Assessee) (Respondent)

disallowance of genuine expenditure and allowed only 25% of commission income as expenditure on ad-hoc basis. ITA Nos.1364 & 1366/AHD/2017 Assessment Year.2007-08 Nazar Impex & Sanjay K Choudhary 9. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 4. Succinct facts are that assessee filed return