VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD,SURAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.,-1(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

256 ITR 360 ii) CIT V/s Ranchodbhai Jivabhai Nakhare 208 Taxmann 35 (Guj) iii) CIT V/s Pankaj Enka in ITA No. 967 (215 dated 05.01.2016) iv) PCIT-1 v/s Ridhi Sidhi Corporation in ITA No. 69 of 2018 dated 14.02.2018 45. Therefore, considering the facts of the assessee`s case and case law relied

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales. The sales only represent the priced received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realization of excess

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales. The sales only represent the priced received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realization of excess

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales. The sales only represent the priced received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realization of excess

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales. The sales only represent the priced received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realization of excess

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales. The sales only represent the priced received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realization of excess

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales. The sales only represent the priced received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realization of excess

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

AMITKUMAR AGRAWAL,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT

In the result, ground No.4 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 25/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Amitkumar Agrawal Assistant Commissioner Of Income- I-2474-75, Millennium Textile Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat, बनाम Market, Ring Road, Room No.213, 2Nd Floor, Vs Surat-395 002 Aaykar Bhavan, Opp. [Pan : Ajtpa 4052 E] New Civil Hospital, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

1). Thus, the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed 20% of the expenses. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 8. We have heard the submission of ld. AR of the assessee and the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that during assessment proceedings, assessee furnished complete details of unsecured

JAYANTILAL VALLABHBHAI RAMOLIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2017 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Jayantilal Vallabhbhai Income Tax Officer, Ramoliya, 33-134, Miranagar Ward-3(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Society, Varachha Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No. Abipr 3365 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

1. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming unexplained cash credit of Rs.21,72,500/- which may kindly be deleted. Jayantilal V Ramoliya 2. That the CIT(A) erred in observing that there is no double taxation by again imposing penalty u/s 269SS on addition of unexplained cash credit. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition

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.

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 and circumstances of the case as well

DHANORI SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Dhanori Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., I.T.O., At Post Dhanori, Dhanori Tal Ward-2, Vs. Gandevi, Navsari-396360. Navsari. Pan No. Aaatd 2124 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 22/03/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1

M/S. JAY KESAR BHAVANI DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ITOI,WD.1(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1196/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Jay Kesar Bhavani V. Income Tax Officer, Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(3) Surat A-48,Kesar Kunj, Shri Bhulabhai Desai Marg, Laxmikant Ashram Road Katargam Surat 395004 Pan:Aabcj 6278 P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance deduction of Rs. 5,02,25,387 u/s. 80IB(10) are not pressed before us, by the Learned Counsel on the ground that the original return of income was not filed within statutory period for eligible to make claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, ex-consequenti, these grounds of appeal are treated as dismissed

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

1,50,213 coins [x]\nRs.12.35). Before the AO, the assessee submitted that these coins do not\nbelong to him but did not specify the person to whom these coins pertain to /\nbelong to. However, the AO held that as the evidence of holding these coins\nwas found in the premises of the assessee, the onus was on the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, BHARUCH vs. SALYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BHARUCH

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.438/Srt/2018 (Ay 2010-11) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of Salya India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Ayan Apartment, Limda Vs Bharuch, 1St Floor, Hari Falia, At & P.O Kamboli, Kunj, Income Tax Office, Bharuch Pan No. Aalcs 7799 C Above Bank Of Baroda Building, Station Road, Bharuch अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO in the assessment order which was due to non- submission of the relevant details and evidences in respect of the sundry creditors of Rs.84,45,85,996/- and unsecured loans of Rs.26

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, SURAT vs. SHRI SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross appeal of\nthe assessee is partly allowed

1,50,213 coins [x]\nRs.12.35). Before the AO, the assessee submitted that these coins do not\nbelong to him but did not specify the person to whom these coins pertain to /\nbelong to. However, the AO held that as the evidence of holding these coins\nwas found in the premises of the assessee, the onus was on the assessee

M/S. WHITE WILLOW,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(5), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.370/Srt/2022 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S White Willow Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Surat, Vishram Apartment, Opp. Vs Anavil Business Centre, Sawlani Estate Bungalows, Pal Hazira Road, Adajan, Beside Trinidhi Apartment, Surat-395007 Ghod Dod Road, Regent Mall, Surat-395007 Pan No. Aabfw 4804 F ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

256 ITR 360 (Guj) 7 M/s White Willow  Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj)  CIT vs. Pragati Co.Op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj)  CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Lt. 159 ITR 78 (SC) 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the assessee further submits that assessing officer issued notice under section 133(6) to the lenders. Such notice

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT vs. M/S. RAJLAXMI INFRA, SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Rajlaxmi Infra Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Room 64, Rajlaxmi Height, Vs No.410, Aayakar Bhawan, Singanpore Cosway Road, Majura Gate, Opp. Shradhhadeep Soc, Surat-395001 Surat-395004 Pan No. Aaofr 1095 C ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,07,00,000/- out of the total addition made by the AO at Rajlaxmi Infra Rs.1,25,00,000/- on account of bogus unsecured loans, by observing that the unsecured loans to the extent of Rs.1

M/S KASHIRAM ATMARAM,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.236/Srt/2022 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) Kashiram Atmaram Deputy Commissioner Of 3/1949, Siddhi Sheri, Income-Tax, Vs Salabatpura, Surat-395003 Central Circle-(1)(1)(1), Pan No. Aadfk 2670 H Room No.108, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

256 ITR 360 (Guj) 182 CTR 373 (Guj) [19-03-2001] and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. (1986) 52 CTR 0138/(1986) 159 ITR 0078 SC. 5. The NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee confirmed the addition of Rs.35.00 lakh under section