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

section 145(3) of the Act, are as follows: (i) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, are as follows: “1. 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

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

section 145(3) of the Act, are as follows: (i) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, are as follows: “1. 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

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 145(3) of the Act and the Assessing Officer estimated the addition of such alleged purchases @ 18%. The Assessing Officer prepared the summary of purchases IT(SS)A 40 to 45, 115, 112 & 50/Srt./2021 Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT shown from all these parties as recorded in last sub para of para 11 at page

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 145(3) of the Act and the Assessing Officer estimated the addition of such alleged purchases @ 18%. The Assessing Officer prepared the summary of purchases IT(SS)A 40 to 45, 115, 112 & 50/Srt./2021 Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT shown from all these parties as recorded in last sub para of para 11 at page

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

145(3) and passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act on 26.03.2013. Aggrieved by the disallowance of loss

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

section 145(3) of the Act. After rejection of books of accounts, the assessing officer had estimated the gross profit by Rs.14,26,541/- @ 3% on turnover at Rs.4,75,51,369/-. However, the gross profit declared by the assessee to the tune of Rs.23,27,044/- @ 4.89% on turnover, has not been reduced by the Assessing Officer from

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

section 145(3) of the Act. After rejection of books of accounts, the assessing officer had estimated the gross profit by Rs.14,26,541/- @ 3% on turnover at Rs.4,75,51,369/-. However, the gross profit declared by the assessee to the tune of Rs.23,27,044/- @ 4.89% on turnover, has not been reduced by the Assessing Officer from

LATE SHRI BHIMSEN DARBARILAL ARORA,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, SURAT

In the result, ground no.4 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Through, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, L/H. Rajat Bhimsen Arora, Surat. Smt. Mamta Bhimsen Arora, A-201, Madhulika Apartment, Bhatar Road, Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acaps9230L

section and in fact made disallowance out of purchases treating them unverifiable. Finding of excess stock & cash by itself is good ground for rejection of books of a/c especially when such excess stock & cash has not been incorporated in the books. Hence, the action of the AO u/s. 145(3

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. POKHRANA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, all the grounds of appeal which is in the form of narrative, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., M/S Pokhrana Impex Private Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), 203, Sheetal Chamber, Bhaja Bhai Vs. Surat. Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. Pan No. Aabcp 7359 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

145(3) that only on the basis of fact that the assessee had not maintained the quality wise description of stock. To support such contentions, the assessee relied on various case laws as noted by the ld. CIT(A) on page No. 23 and 24 of the impugned order. On the observation of Assessing Officer “in sales and ITA 411/Srt/2019

KIRTIKUMAR NAGINDAS SHAH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.535/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Kiritkumar Nagindas Shah, Vs. The Ito, A-1103, Regent Residency, Near Ward – 2(3)(6), Saurabh Society, Pal, Surat Surat – 395009, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anjps9031P (Appellant) (Respondent)

145 of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of ITA.535/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Kiritkumar Nagindas Shah Assessing Officer by sustaining the addition of Rs. 7,56,965/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances

M/S SUMILON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.87/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Sumilon Industries Pvt. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd. 6-121-A, Vairagini Wadi, Income-Tax-1, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Delhi Gate, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs3567 L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

3) by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and set aside the assessment framed with a direction to the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment after taking into account, the observations made by the PCIT for disallowance under section 14A of the Act, 1961 read with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules and further directed to properly verify the claim

SMT. PURNIMA SUNIL AGRAWAL,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,VAPI WARD-2,, VAPI

In the result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court-Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3224/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 902, Orchid Tower, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi. Chharwada Road, Vapi Dist. Valsad-396195. [Pan: Aavpa 0055 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

145(3) of the Act. 5. After rejecting the books of accounts, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of sundry creditors. The Assessing Officer noted that in order to verify the creditors, the books of accounts together purchase bills, sales bills, supporting evidence and credit worthiness of the creditors is required. However, in spite of sufficient opportunities granted

BALMUKUND M VAISHNAV,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, and since the ITA Nos. 204 &205/SRT/2019 Balmukund M. Vaishnav assessee failed to explain that the purchases worth Rs.28,81,47,552/- are genuine purchases therefore appropriate addition on account of bogus purchase of Rs.28,81,47,552/- u/s 69C of the Act was made by the assessing officer

DINESH GARG (HUF),VAPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CENTRAL - 1L , VAPI

Accordingly. These appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By :

145(3), and estimating the disallowance 25% of total URD purchases, whereas in the instant year the disallowance was made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act as assessee made cash payment in excess of Rs.20,000/- for URD purchases. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting

LALIT GARG (HUF),VAPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, VAPI

Accordingly. These appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By :

145(3), and estimating the disallowance 25% of total URD purchases, whereas in the instant year the disallowance was made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act as assessee made cash payment in excess of Rs.20,000/- for URD purchases. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting

LALIT GARG (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

Accordingly. These appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By :

145(3), and estimating the disallowance 25% of total URD purchases, whereas in the instant year the disallowance was made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act as assessee made cash payment in excess of Rs.20,000/- for URD purchases. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting

DINESH GARG(HUF),VALSAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

Accordingly. These appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By :

145(3), and estimating the disallowance 25% of total URD purchases, whereas in the instant year the disallowance was made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act as assessee made cash payment in excess of Rs.20,000/- for URD purchases. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting

DINESH GARG (HUF),VAPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, VAPI

Accordingly. These appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By :

145(3), and estimating the disallowance 25% of total URD purchases, whereas in the instant year the disallowance was made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act as assessee made cash payment in excess of Rs.20,000/- for URD purchases. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting

DINESH GARG (HUF),VAPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

Accordingly. These appeals are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsl. आयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By :

145(3), and estimating the disallowance 25% of total URD purchases, whereas in the instant year the disallowance was made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act as assessee made cash payment in excess of Rs.20,000/- for URD purchases. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting