S J P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 to 3 of the appeal are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.430/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) S J P Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of E-3300, Radhakrishna Textile Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2) Vs Market, Ring Road, Surat- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, 395002 Income Tax Colony, Pan No. Aajcs 4313 C Athwa, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

197 Taxman 25 (Delhi)/[2012] 341 ITR 467 (Delhi)/[2011] 238 CTR 113 (Delhi)[24-12-2010]. 8. Against ground No.4, which relates to disallowance under section 14A, the disallowance, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that without recording dissatisfaction of working of suo motu disallowance under section 14A, no such disallowance is permissible. There is no dis- satisfaction

SHIVAM WELLNESS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ADIT-CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.492 & 493/Srt/2023 (Ays 2020-21 & 2021-22) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shivam Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Adit-Cpc, Bangalore Clinic, Hg-1, I.T.C. Building, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha, Vs Majura Gate, Ring Road, No.48/1, 48/2, Surat-395 001 Beratengaagrahara, Housr [Pan Abbcs 3673 G] Road, Uttarahalli Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560100 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

197 (Guj)[20-12-2004] held that appeal is a continuation of assessment proceedings and the proceeding before Tribunal are mean to correctly tax liability of assessee. It was also held that tribunal is well within its jurisdiction to entertain new ground by which the assessee claim benefit and adjudicate the tax liability of assessee. ITA Nos.492-493/SRT/2023 (A.Ys

SHIVAM WELLNESS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ADIT-CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.492 & 493/Srt/2023 (Ays 2020-21 & 2021-22) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shivam Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Adit-Cpc, Bangalore Clinic, Hg-1, I.T.C. Building, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha, Vs Majura Gate, Ring Road, No.48/1, 48/2, Surat-395 001 Beratengaagrahara, Housr [Pan Abbcs 3673 G] Road, Uttarahalli Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560100 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

197 (Guj)[20-12-2004] held that appeal is a continuation of assessment proceedings and the proceeding before Tribunal are mean to correctly tax liability of assessee. It was also held that tribunal is well within its jurisdiction to entertain new ground by which the assessee claim benefit and adjudicate the tax liability of assessee. ITA Nos.492-493/SRT/2023 (A.Ys

VALSAD DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OP. BANK LTD.,,VALSAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O. P. Meena

1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-Valsad (in short “the CIT (A)”) dated 03.03.2015 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11, which in turn has arisen from the assessment order passed under section 143 (3) dtd.19.03.2014 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Addl

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of purchase cannot be made. f) CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd 35 Taxmann.com 384 (Bom- HC) Confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil appeal no. 14828/2013 on 30/08/2013 g) CIT v. Nangalia Fabric Pvt. Ltd. 40 Taxmamt.com 206 (Guj-HC) h) DCIT vs. Majeev G. Kalathil ITA No. 6727/ Mum/ 2012 Without prejudice to the above

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of purchase cannot be made. f) CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd 35 Taxmann.com 384 (Bom- HC) Confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil appeal no. 14828/2013 on 30/08/2013 g) CIT v. Nangalia Fabric Pvt. Ltd. 40 Taxmamt.com 206 (Guj-HC) h) DCIT vs. Majeev G. Kalathil ITA No. 6727/ Mum/ 2012 Without prejudice to the above

SHRIFAL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of purchase cannot be made. f) CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd 35 Taxmann.com 384 (Bom- HC) Confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil appeal no. 14828/2013 on 30/08/2013 g) CIT v. Nangalia Fabric Pvt. Ltd. 40 Taxmamt.com 206 (Guj-HC) h) DCIT vs. Majeev G. Kalathil ITA No. 6727/ Mum/ 2012 Without prejudice to the above

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT vs. M/S. SAFFRON GEMS PVT. LTD., , SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before estimating the addition of suppressed profits on disputed purchase and sale of goods of Rs.36,46,197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. MARUDHAR DIAMOND PVT LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before estimating the addition of suppressed profits on disputed purchase and sale of goods of Rs.36,46,197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-3, SURAT vs. M/S. ANTIQUE EXIM PVT. LTD., , SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before estimating the addition of suppressed profits on disputed purchase and sale of goods of Rs.36,46,197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills

MARUDHAR DIAMOND PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before estimating the addition of suppressed profits on disputed purchase and sale of goods of Rs.36,46,197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills

SAFFRON GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before estimating the addition of suppressed profits on disputed purchase and sale of goods of Rs.36,46,197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills

ANTIQUE EXIM PVT LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before estimating the addition of suppressed profits on disputed purchase and sale of goods of Rs.36,46,197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills

ASST. COMMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, SURAT vs. M/S. NOBAL JEWELS PVT. LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before estimating the addition of suppressed profits on disputed purchase and sale of goods of Rs.36,46,197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills

NOBAL JEWELS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.431 &440/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing)

disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before estimating the addition of suppressed profits on disputed purchase and sale of goods of Rs.36,46,197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills

THE ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD,, SURAT vs. SHREE AMBIKA NIKETAN TRUST,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhअपील सं./Ita No.667/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2013-2014 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ambika Niketan Trust, [Exemption] Ward, Surat, H.No.13/52, Vs. Surat. C/0 Ambika Niketan Mandir, Khan Saheb Ni Wadi, Athwalines, Surat-395001. Pan Aabts2849C (Applicant) (Responent) Revenue By : Shri Prasanjit Singh, Cit,Dr : Assessee By Kruti Kothari, C.A सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/11/2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh:

disallowed. 4. Aggrieved assessee has filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee which is reproduced as under: ‘’(4) Therefore, all the High Courts have taken identical view in favour of the assessee. This has not to be confused with the normal carry forward of business loss. The view taken

ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. AMITBHAI VASANTLAL SHAH, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.474/Srt/2023 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Physical Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward Amitbhai Vasantlal Shah No.1(3)(1) Surat, Room No.203, C, Ground Floor, Ravijyot Vs Income Tax Office, Anavil Apartment, Opp. Lourds Business Centre, Adajan-395009 Convent School, Athwalines, Surat-395001 Pan Apxps 3639 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act by disallowing Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.3.94 crores and treated the same as business income. We also find that 2 Amitbhai V Shah appeal against quantum assessment, the assessee was allowed full relief in ITA No(s)197

THE ITO, WARD-1,, NA vs. ARIVS.SHRI ANILKUMAR AMRUTLAL CHAHWALA, NAVSARI

In the result, this ground of appeal is rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2078/Ahd/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1003/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Amrutlal Chahwala, Ward-(1), Navsari. 102, Trimurti Complex, Vijalpore, Navsari. [Pan: Abnpc 6308 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

disallowance of labour expenses. (3) The CIT (A) also erred in law and facts in directing to delete the addition of Rs. 7,00,330/- made on account of unexplained investment in advances. (4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the addition and order of assessing officer