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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIYA FABRICS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

disallowance of revenue expenditures claimed by the assessee on the ground that no business activity was undertaken by the assessee during the impugned assessment year. The ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned anywhere in his order with regard to the notice of enhancement ever served upon the assessee. Provisions of section 251(2

MEGA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

disallowance I.T.A No.988/Srt/2024 Mega Automobile Pvt. Ltd., A.Y.2017-18 u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs. 73,605/-(30% of Rs. 2,45,350/-) on account of non-deduction of TDS by the assessee on training expenses. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned

KIRITBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, both appeal of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.965/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, बनाम/ 48, Paradi, Balak Valsad, Navsari, Room No.206, Income Vs. Navsari-396 475 Tax Officer, Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Navsari, Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel बनाम/ Room No.206, Income Tax Officer, 48, Paradi, Arak Valsad, Vs. Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Navsari-396 475 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

2. Learned CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in disallowing cash deposited into assessee wife namely Sudhaben Kiritbhai Patel bank account with IndusInd Bank, bearing S/b A/c no.10041676353 to the extent of Rs.1,66,000/- (6,64,000/- @ 25%). But as a matter of facts the entire cash deposited of Rs.6,64,000/- belongs to assessee wife namely Sudhaben Kiritbhai Patel

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, NA vs. ARI, NAVSARIVS.KIRITBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL, NAVSARI

In the result, both appeal of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.965/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, बनाम/ 48, Paradi, Balak Valsad, Navsari, Room No.206, Income Vs. Navsari-396 475 Tax Officer, Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.830/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Navsari, Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Patel बनाम/ Room No.206, Income Tax Officer, 48, Paradi, Arak Valsad, Vs. Char Pool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Navsari-396 475 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Awspp 7295 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

2. Learned CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in disallowing cash deposited into assessee wife namely Sudhaben Kiritbhai Patel bank account with IndusInd Bank, bearing S/b A/c no.10041676353 to the extent of Rs.1,66,000/- (6,64,000/- @ 25%). But as a matter of facts the entire cash deposited of Rs.6,64,000/- belongs to assessee wife namely Sudhaben Kiritbhai Patel

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

disallowance of PF and ESIC of Rs.23,20,130/- and addition of Rs.12,89,25,938/- u/s.68 of the Act. However, the addition made u/s.68 was left out to be added in computation of income hence, same was later added by the AO vide order u/s.154 dated 09.04.2014 of the Act. The AO noticed that the assessee has taken total

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), SURAT vs. M/S. HI-CHOICE PROCESSORS P. 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.98/Srt/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Income Tax Officer, M/S. Hi-Choice Processors Pvt. Ward-1(1)(3), Room No.113, Vs. Ltd., 264, Gidc, Sachin, Surat- Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 394230. 395002 (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach7062E िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 31/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2023

section 68 of the IT. Act? 4. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs.39,01,339/- on loan of Rs.3,52,75,000/- ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness

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 Act, 2001. 2

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 Act, 2001. 2

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 Act, 2001. 2