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

1 relates to passing ex-parte order by ld CIT(A) and ground No. 2 relates to disallowance of depreciation and ground No. 3 relates to interest disallowances. The Ld. AR for the assessee at the beginning of hearing apprised about the fact that order of Ld.CIT(A) is ex parte and that the assessee has raised a specific ground

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that notices of hearing were issued to the wrong e-mail Id, i.e., ‘moulimaniImpexpl@gmail.com’ instead of ‘gandhi.himanshu92@yahoo.in’, which was mentioned in Form 35. The CIT(A) passed order on 23.12.2024 and due date

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that notices of hearing were issued to the wrong e-mail Id, i.e., ‘moulimaniImpexpl@gmail.com’ instead of ‘gandhi.himanshu92@yahoo.in’, which was mentioned in Form 35. The CIT(A) passed order on 23.12.2024 and due date

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that notices of hearing were issued to the wrong e-mail Id, i.e., ‘moulimaniImpexpl@gmail.com’ instead of ‘gandhi.himanshu92@yahoo.in’, which was mentioned in Form 35. The CIT(A) passed order on 23.12.2024 and due date

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that notices of hearing were issued to the wrong e-mail Id, i.e., ‘moulimaniImpexpl@gmail.com’ instead of ‘gandhi.himanshu92@yahoo.in’, which was mentioned in Form 35. The CIT(A) passed order on 23.12.2024 and due date

SUDHIR BHUPENDRA DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT. TAX), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.92/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sudhir Bhupendra Desai Income Tax Officer, (Int. Tax), 106, ‘Shriyam’, Nehru Nagar, Room No.107, 1St Floor, Vs Ichhanath, Svr College, S.O., Income-Tax Office, Surat Surat-395007 Anavil Business Centre, Pan No: Axdpd 7887 Q Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

253  JCIT vs. Signature (2005) 143 TAXMAN 28 (Del)(MAG)  DCIT vs. Chirag Metal Rolling Mills Ltd. [2007] 162 TAXMAN 317 (MP)  CIT vs. Sunil Chand Gupta [2013] 40 taxmann.com 307 (All) 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that ignorance

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

disallowed the same on estimate basis without any justification. Hence, same are directed to be allowed. This ground of appeal is therefore, allowed. 8. Ground No. 5 & 6 : states that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in not considering the claim of the assessee that the entire receipt to the tune of Rs.23

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

disallowed the same on estimate basis without any justification. Hence, same are directed to be allowed. This ground of appeal is therefore, allowed. 8. Ground No. 5 & 6 : states that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in not considering the claim of the assessee that the entire receipt to the tune of Rs.23

UTKARSH VASANTKUMAR MEHTA,SILVASSA vs. DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that while passing the assessment order the AO made addition on account of undisclosed duty drawback of 70,299/-. The addition was made by taking view that during assessment, assessing officer noted that assessee has credited an amount of ₹ 1,75,523/- on account of duty

SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

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

disallowance by the restricting it to 5% of the total purchases following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Mayank Diamond Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014(1) TMI 812 (Guj.). In the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench, Surat in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income 239 & 304/SRT/2019 & 122 & 124/SRT/2020 Ravjibhai

SHRI RAVJIBHAI B DHAMELIYA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

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

disallowance by the restricting it to 5% of the total purchases following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Mayank Diamond Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014(1) TMI 812 (Guj.). In the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench, Surat in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income 239 & 304/SRT/2019 & 122 & 124/SRT/2020 Ravjibhai

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA, SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

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

disallowance by the restricting it to 5% of the total purchases following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Mayank Diamond Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014(1) TMI 812 (Guj.). In the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench, Surat in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income 239 & 304/SRT/2019 & 122 & 124/SRT/2020 Ravjibhai

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,, SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

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

disallowance by the restricting it to 5% of the total purchases following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Mayank Diamond Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014(1) TMI 812 (Guj.). In the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench, Surat in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income 239 & 304/SRT/2019 & 122 & 124/SRT/2020 Ravjibhai

YOGENDRARAJ U. SINGHVI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.459/Srt/2023 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Hybrid Mode) Yogendra Raj U Singhvi, Income Tax Officer-2(3)(8) Cts, 95/4/B-3-4/590, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs Village Dindoshi, Surat-395001 Oberoi Garden City, Flat No. 3902, Floor C-Wing, Meter Exquisite, Mumbai. Pan : Anjps 9745 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

1)(c) dated 09.03.2015. The ld AR for assessee by refereeing the contents of such notice submits that the assessing officer has not strike off the inappropriate portion of the notice, in specifying the charges either ‘for concealment of income’ or for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income’. The ld AR for the assessee submits that he has also filed

M/S. VIPUL PARK,TAPI vs. THE DCIT,CENT.CIR.-2, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1195/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Vipul Park, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Andhar Wadi Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Vyara, Dist. Tapi – 394 650. Surat. [Pan: Aalfm 3438 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1,49,07,456 (d) Total saleable area in the Project 787.22 1653.45 (in sq. mtrs.) (e) Cost per sq. mtr. [(c)/(d)] 9,015,.97 9,015.97 (f) Total area sold during the year 262.46 866.23 (in sq. mtrs.) (g) Cost of construction of area sold during the year [(f)/(e)] 23,66,332 78,09,904 ====================== The appellant

HI-TECH MARKETING,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the Ground no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainihi-Tech Marketing, The Income – Tax Officer, 114, Belgium Tower, Old Ward -3(1)(4), Surat Linear Bus Stop, Station Road, Surat – 395 003. Vs Pan : Aabfh5705N Appellant Respondednt

253 of Income-tax Act is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, [in short “the CIT(A)”], Surat dated 08/06/2017, which in turn arises from assessment order dated 27/10/2015 passed under section (u/s.)143(3) r.w.s 147 of Income Tax Act [in short “the Act”] for the Assessment Year

BHOJALRAM URBAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject,\nthe Commissioner of Income Tax(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action\nof AO in adding interest income of Rs.15,494/- received from the deposits from\ninvestment made by it with IST Bank by observing that the same is not\nallowable

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. The penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is based on the quantum addition of Rs.38,83,253/- treated as bogus purchases. In the quantum appeal, the Tribunal in ITA No.612/SRT/2025 (supra), decided above, has held that the purchases cannot be disallowed