N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

section 251(1)(a) and once an assessment order is brought before the authority, his competence is not restricted to examining only those aspects of the assessment about which the assessee make a grievance and ranges over the whole assessment to correct the Assessing Officer not only with regard to a matter raised by the assessee in appeal but also

THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VAPI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

section 251(1)(a) and once an assessment order is brought before the authority, his competence is not restricted to examining only those aspects of the assessment about which the assessee make a grievance and ranges over the whole assessment to correct the Assessing Officer not only with regard to a matter raised by the assessee in appeal but also

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.

2) (ii) Revised calculation of proportionate Disallowance (As per Method of ‘assessing Officer’) (vide PB. 3) (iii) Details of Expenses considered for Disallowance (vide PB.4) (iv) Calculation sheet of proportionate disallowance (Net Income Method) (vide PB.5 to 8) (v) Copy of Trading, Profit and Loss and Balance sheet of Power Tillers Department (English Translation) for the AY.2007-08 (vide PB.9

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.

2) (ii) Revised calculation of proportionate Disallowance (As per Method of ‘assessing Officer’) (vide PB. 3) (iii) Details of Expenses considered for Disallowance (vide PB.4) (iv) Calculation sheet of proportionate disallowance (Net Income Method) (vide PB.5 to 8) (v) Copy of Trading, Profit and Loss and Balance sheet of Power Tillers Department (English Translation) for the AY.2007-08 (vide PB.9

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.

2) (ii) Revised calculation of proportionate Disallowance (As per Method of ‘assessing Officer’) (vide PB. 3) (iii) Details of Expenses considered for Disallowance (vide PB.4) (iv) Calculation sheet of proportionate disallowance (Net Income Method) (vide PB.5 to 8) (v) Copy of Trading, Profit and Loss and Balance sheet of Power Tillers Department (English Translation) for the AY.2007-08 (vide PB.9

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.

2) (ii) Revised calculation of proportionate Disallowance (As per Method of ‘assessing Officer’) (vide PB. 3) (iii) Details of Expenses considered for Disallowance (vide PB.4) (iv) Calculation sheet of proportionate disallowance (Net Income Method) (vide PB.5 to 8) (v) Copy of Trading, Profit and Loss and Balance sheet of Power Tillers Department (English Translation) for the AY.2007-08 (vide PB.9

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.

2. Though Ld. AO has not specified the section/provision of the IT Act, it is quite evident that he has invoked Section 68 of the Act. The Ld. AO has termed the outstanding trade creditors as bogus liability in the form of creditors and given treatment of unexplained cash credits as per Section 68. On careful consideration of facts

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.

2. Though Ld. AO has not specified the section/provision of the IT Act, it is quite evident that he has invoked Section 68 of the Act. The Ld. AO has termed the outstanding trade creditors as bogus liability in the form of creditors and given treatment of unexplained cash credits as per Section 68. On careful consideration of facts

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.

2. Though Ld. AO has not specified the section/provision of the IT Act, it is quite evident that he has invoked Section 68 of the Act. The Ld. AO has termed the outstanding trade creditors as bogus liability in the form of creditors and given treatment of unexplained cash credits as per Section 68. On careful consideration of facts

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.

2. Though Ld. AO has not specified the section/provision of the IT Act, it is quite evident that he has invoked Section 68 of the Act. The Ld. AO has termed the outstanding trade creditors as bogus liability in the form of creditors and given treatment of unexplained cash credits as per Section 68. On careful consideration of facts

SHRI VIMALCHAND JAIN,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result the ground No

disallowance to only Rs.73,73,322/- " 10.7 In view of the above decision, the addition made by the AO @ 25% of bogus purchases is incorrect. Accordingly, as already stated enhancement notice u/s 251(1) r.w.s. 251(2) of the Act dated 19.02.2018 was issued to the address mentioned in form No. 35 and there has been no compliance by appellant/AR

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

251/- (l/5th share purchase in respect of land at block (Rs.3,38,911/- No. 345 *1024/223) of assessee) Long Term Capital gains taxable in A.Y. 2015-16 Rs.2,44,28,561/- 1. Purchase cost of land at block No.344 as per deed dated 12.11.1992: Rs.59,221/- 2. Purchase cost of land at block No. 345 as per deed dated

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 of commission @ 2

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

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

2,06,000/- only. No other details such as balance sheet, bank statement etc were filed to substantiate his claim. In absence of any evidence, the amount of Rs. 14,85,000/- claimed to have been received from his wife Rasilaben, was considered as from undisclosed sources and was added to the income of the assessee. In addition to this

JAYSHRI GOPALLAL MAHARAJSHRINI SURAT SRUSTI TRUST,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

251 of the Act.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) disallowing the claim of exemption under section 12A Jayshri Gopallal Maharajshrini Surat Srusti Trust vs. ITO (E) Asst. Year –2022-23 - 4– of the Act on account of delay in filing of Form 10B, along with return of income