GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel contended that there should be finality in this assessee`s matter under consideration otherwise there will be never ending process, if the assessee`s matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. The Ld. Counsel submitted before us the following documents and evidences for AY.2007-08: Gandevi Taluka

GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel contended that there should be finality in this assessee`s matter under consideration otherwise there will be never ending process, if the assessee`s matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. The Ld. Counsel submitted before us the following documents and evidences for AY.2007-08: Gandevi Taluka

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NA vs. ARIVS.GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel contended that there should be finality in this assessee`s matter under consideration otherwise there will be never ending process, if the assessee`s matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. The Ld. Counsel submitted before us the following documents and evidences for AY.2007-08: Gandevi Taluka

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NA vs. ARIVS.GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel contended that there should be finality in this assessee`s matter under consideration otherwise there will be never ending process, if the assessee`s matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. The Ld. Counsel submitted before us the following documents and evidences for AY.2007-08: Gandevi Taluka

UMESHKUMAR P BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

Section 68 comes into play where any sum is credited in account which is not explained by assessee and does, not apply when goods or services is purchased on credit & an entry is made creating the liability in the account of supplier. When the purchases & sales are not doubted, the outstanding creditors cannot, be added u/s 68. In this case

ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI UMESH P BANSAL, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

Section 68 comes into play where any sum is credited in account which is not explained by assessee and does, not apply when goods or services is purchased on credit & an entry is made creating the liability in the account of supplier. When the purchases & sales are not doubted, the outstanding creditors cannot, be added u/s 68. In this case

UMESHKUMAR P BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

Section 68 comes into play where any sum is credited in account which is not explained by assessee and does, not apply when goods or services is purchased on credit & an entry is made creating the liability in the account of supplier. When the purchases & sales are not doubted, the outstanding creditors cannot, be added u/s 68. In this case

ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI UMESH P BANSAL, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

Section 68 comes into play where any sum is credited in account which is not explained by assessee and does, not apply when goods or services is purchased on credit & an entry is made creating the liability in the account of supplier. When the purchases & sales are not doubted, the outstanding creditors cannot, be added u/s 68. In this case

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant reserves the right

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant reserves the right

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant reserves the right

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant reserves the right

BASE INDUSTRIES LTD.,,U.T. OF DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Base Industries Ltd., I.T.O., Behind Hanuman Mandir, Nr. Canal, Ward-1, Vs. Demni Road, Dadra, Silvasa. Vapi. Pan No. Aaccr 6479 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

251(2) of the Act. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the law and deserves to be deleted. 4. The Appellant craves to add, amend, modify or alter the above grounds of appeal at any stage of appellate proceedings. 5. The Appellant humbly prays that the appeal be allowed in toto

D V PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.519/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) D.V. Properties Pvt, Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 748-749 Golden Plaza Market, Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1) Vs Ring Road, Surat-395002 Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Pan No. Aaacd 8392 B Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 68 of the Act. To support such view, the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj). For disallowance

SHRI SHAMJIBHAI M. SHELADIYA,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.234/Srt/2022 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Shamjibhai M Sheladiya Assistant Commissioner Of 11, Chandanbaug Society, Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Vs Opp. Dharam Nagar, A.K. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Road, Surat-395006 Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No: Afxps 3164 B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 03.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 27.05.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 06.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.15,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act,1961. Sh.Shamjibhai M Sheladiya 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Invoking Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act & In Thereby Taxing Entire Cash Credit Of Rs.15,00,000/- At 30 Percentage.

disallowance / addition under section 68 of the Act for unsecured loan. The assessee stated that he has availed loan from these two persons and furnished their respective confirmation, ITR, computation, profit and loss account along with their balance-sheet and bank statements, particularly for unsecured loan of Rs.7.00 lakh from Ashokbhai J Dhanani, the assessee stated that during the assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA vs. ANSUYA PUSHPVIJAYSINH PARMAR , SILVASSA

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue as well as all the three cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Ita Nos. 769 To 771/Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2017-18

251(1) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's appeal with a direction to verify the claim then allow, which is nothing but deemed setting aside the assessment, and such powers ceased to exist with effect from 01.06.2001 by the Finance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA vs. ANSUYA PUSHPVIJAYSINH PARMAR, SILVASSA

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue as well as all the three cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Ita Nos. 769 To 771/Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2017-18

251(1) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's appeal with a direction to verify the claim then allow, which is nothing but deemed setting aside the assessment, and such powers ceased to exist with effect from 01.06.2001 by the Finance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA vs. ANSUYA PUSPAVIJAYSINH PARMAR, SILVASSA

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue as well as all the three cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Ita Nos. 769 To 771/Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2017-18

251(1) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's appeal with a direction to verify the claim then allow, which is nothing but deemed setting aside the assessment, and such powers ceased to exist with effect from 01.06.2001 by the Finance