DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

section 133(6) concluded that mere payment by cheque is not sacrosanct nor it can make a genuine transaction. The Assessing Officer worked the peak credit in the case of Paras Gems, Madhav Gems & Mayur Gems and made addition of Rs.4.15 crores. The Assessing Officer further made addition on account of disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT vs. M/S. RAJLAXMI INFRA, SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Rajlaxmi Infra Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Room 64, Rajlaxmi Height, Vs No.410, Aayakar Bhawan, Singanpore Cosway Road, Majura Gate, Opp. Shradhhadeep Soc, Surat-395001 Surat-395004 Pan No. Aaofr 1095 C ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

disallowing purchase only on the ground that party did not file any evidence in response to notice under section 133(6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, SURAT vs. M/S AALIDHAR TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

133(6) to Dudhiben ITA Nos. 226/SRT/2023 & 288/SRT/2022/AYs.2017-18 & 2018-19 ACIT vs. Aalidhar Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Ambalal Gondalia Education Foundation Trust, for seeking copy of registration under section 80G. The Assessing Officer noted that Dudhiben Ambalal Gondalia Education Foundation Trust was received and they furnished a copy of registration under section 80G. The other two trust has not furnished

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT vs. AALIDHAARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

133(6) to Dudhiben ITA Nos. 226/SRT/2023 & 288/SRT/2022/AYs.2017-18 & 2018-19 ACIT vs. Aalidhar Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Ambalal Gondalia Education Foundation Trust, for seeking copy of registration under section 80G. The Assessing Officer noted that Dudhiben Ambalal Gondalia Education Foundation Trust was received and they furnished a copy of registration under section 80G. The other two trust has not furnished

M/S. S.D. MINERALS PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE JT.CIT.,(OSD)CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.554/Srt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. S.D. Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Joint Commissioner Of 3009, World Trade Centre, Income-Tax Circle –4 Ring Road Surat 395002 (Osd)Surat Pan: Aakcs 3533 K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 133(6) of the Act and obtained the Ledger copy of account of certain parties, in which five parties reflected that they had received cash payment in excess of Rs.20 000, in a day aggregating to Rs. 81,47,100. Therefore, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the same should not be disallowed

NIRALKUMAR K. SHAH,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-6,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Niralkumar K Shah, I.T.O., B-001, Sharddha Co.Op Hsg. Soc., Ward-6, Vs. Gunan Road, Ta-Pardi, Valsad. Vapi. M. No. 9913800836 E Mail-Parinshahca@Gmail.Com Pan No. Bvjps 2700 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6) of the Act. The Assessing Officer noted that the vendors has given information to whom that they do not know either Sh. Chintan K Shah or Sh. Kishore K Shah, on such observation, the Assessing 6 Niralkumar K Shah Vs ITO Officer disallowed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTERS PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6) were duly complied. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for disallowance of purchases. The assessee filed

SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6) were duly complied. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for disallowance of purchases. The assessee filed

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

Section 133(6), they confirmed the payment of brokerage made by assessee. The assessee was also asked to furnish name of broker through whom purchase of polyster chips and the name of broker through whom sales of yarn/grey fabric was made. The assessee vide his reply dated 14/3/2014 submitted that for selling of its product, technical services were also expected

SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

Section 133(6), they confirmed the payment of brokerage made by assessee. The assessee was also asked to furnish name of broker through whom purchase of polyster chips and the name of broker through whom sales of yarn/grey fabric was made. The assessee vide his reply dated 14/3/2014 submitted that for selling of its product, technical services were also expected

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, BHARUCH vs. SALYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BHARUCH

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.438/Srt/2018 (Ay 2010-11) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of Salya India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Ayan Apartment, Limda Vs Bharuch, 1St Floor, Hari Falia, At & P.O Kamboli, Kunj, Income Tax Office, Bharuch Pan No. Aalcs 7799 C Above Bank Of Baroda Building, Station Road, Bharuch अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

section 133(6) of the Act. The lender furnished required details of loan e.g. confirmation, ledger account, return of income, audited financial statement, bank statement. Though, the Assessing Officer reported contrary that required details were not furnished. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the 15 Salya India Pvt.Ltd. confirmation audited financial statement, ledger account, return of income of lender

DHAWANI NAINESH PASTAGIA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Dhwani Nainesh Pastagia, I.T.O., 55, Mitrali Co-Op Housing Society, Anand Ward-1(3)(6), Vs. Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Surat. Pan No. Arzpp 3649 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6) returned unserved from some of the person and some replies not received. The Assessing Officer by taking a view that the assessee failed to furnish complete details and in absence of evidence, the commission was treated as doubtful and disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.1(1)(1),, SURAT vs. ENVIRO CONTROL PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Vs. Surat. Maharashtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aaace 8700 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowance at Rs. 47,97,404/-, 10 ACIT Vs Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd. as the assessee has already declared gross profit of Rs. 6,35,407/- in its P&L account, on such trading items, hence, the addition to the extent of Rs. 41,61,997/- (47,97,404 – 6,35,407) was confirmed, thereby granted substantial relief

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. GUJARAT POLYSOL CHEMICALS LIMITED, VAPI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

section 133(6) of the Act, wherein all suppliers have\nconfirmed their supplies and Sunil Patel in his affidavit by\nextracted in a statement during the search proceedings as\nclarified that he was under pressure and has no experience of\nworking in manufacturing industry and made a statement under\nmisconception of cash discounting on purchase; and по\nevidence of investment

I.T.O.WARD -2(1)(4), SURAT vs. VENUS UPCOUNTRY TRADING 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. 388/Srt/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Venus Upcountry Trading Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 6-1181, Dalia Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccv7694N

section 133(6) of the Act to the purchase parties. However, none of the parties have provided any confirmations. Further, assessee was specifically provided reasonable opportunity to comply with such non-compliance of creditors during the course of show cause notice served upon the assessee for which no reply has been provided by the assessee, therefore Assessing Officer, considering such

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

133(6) of the Act. In the party-wise details, the assessee has submitted that if party is not submitting reply to the department,, it is that party should be penalized and not the assessee. Secondly, where the notices are received back unserved in that case also assessee's say is that the assessee should not be penalized

ME AND MUMMY HOSPITAL,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 3,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./It(Ss)A No.11 To 16/Srt/2021 & आ.अ.सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2021 (Ays 2008-09 To 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Me & Mummy Hospital Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central 2Nd Floor, Patwa Building, Vs Circle-3, Room No. 507, Opp. Tapi Baug Society, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Varachha, Surat-395006 Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aanfm 0445 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

section 133(6) of the Act that such information was never confronted with the assessee and such observation of Assessing Officer was incorrect. IT(SS)A No.11-22/SRT/2021, ITA No.40-41/SRT/2021 (A.Ys 08-09 to 14-15) Me & Mummy Hospital 7. On the contrary, the assessee submitted various reply / confirmation from various patients for different assessment years, whereby the concerned patients

ME AND MUMMY HOSPITAL,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.3, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./It(Ss)A No.11 To 16/Srt/2021 & आ.अ.सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2021 (Ays 2008-09 To 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Me & Mummy Hospital Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central 2Nd Floor, Patwa Building, Vs Circle-3, Room No. 507, Opp. Tapi Baug Society, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Varachha, Surat-395006 Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aanfm 0445 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

section 133(6) of the Act that such information was never confronted with the assessee and such observation of Assessing Officer was incorrect. IT(SS)A No.11-22/SRT/2021, ITA No.40-41/SRT/2021 (A.Ys 08-09 to 14-15) Me & Mummy Hospital 7. On the contrary, the assessee submitted various reply / confirmation from various patients for different assessment years, whereby the concerned patients