ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT vs. M/S. SATYAM ENTERPRISE, SURAT

In the result, this part of issue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., M/S Satyam Enterprise, Ward- 3(3)(4), 182-Thakordwar Society, Nr. Vs. Surat. Spinning Mill, Varachha Road, Surat. Pan No. Abvfs 5076 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, the Rules), however, even the document submitted by assessee are considered as additional evidence, the same may be admitted for granting relief. 5 ITO Vs M/s Satyam Enterprise 5. On disallowance of various expenses @ 20%, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer made ad hoc disallowance without any basis and finding

SHRI VASANTBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL,,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9,, VAPI

In the result, ground no 2 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing ) Nirmalaben Vasanthbhai Patel Vs Income Tax Officer, L/ H Of Vasanthbhai Patel, Ward No.-9, Wapi, Gujarat ‘Sneh’Desai Streat, At Post Office Salvav, Vapi, District Valsad, Gujarat. Email: Hardikvora.Ca@Gmail.Com Pan : Accpp2166L Appellant Respondednt Appellant By Sh. Hardik Vora Ar Advocate Respondent By Sh. O.P Meena Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 03 /09/2020 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memebr : 1. This Appeal By Assessing Is Directed Against The Order Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Valsad, Gujarat Dated 23Rd August 2016, Which Arises From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Read With Section 147 Income Tax Act Dated 12Th March 2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal; (I) On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Subject The Assessing Officer Has Erred In Issuing The Notice Under Section 147 Of The Act & Consequently Finalizing The Assessment Under Section 144 Rws 147 Of The Act. (Ii) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Accepting Additional Evidences Under Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Rules.

section 68 and ad-hock disallowance of business expenses as well as car expenses. The assessee also filed application under Rule 46A

SURESHKUMAR MAVJIBHAI BHINGARADIA, INDIVIDUAL,BHARUCH vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Sureshkumar Mavjibhai Bhingaradia, Vs. The Acit, Plot No.3441/B, Near Pci Chowkdi, Circle – 2(1)(1), Gidc Estate, Bharuch - 393002 Vadodara "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acqpb6047G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2025

section 14A of the Act, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) issued various noticed to the assessee, which were not complied with. Therefore, he disallowed proportionate interest of Rs.10

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT vs. NYA INTERNATIONAL,, SURAT

In the result, ground nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.713/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2014-15) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

disallowance on account of trading addition as the assessee had failed to furnish the details for huge fall in Gross Profit declared in return of income (ROI). In the remand report, the assessing officer has pointed out that the value of closing stock of the silver for the A.Y. 2012-13 did not match with the value of opening stock

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT vs. M/S NYA INTERNATIONAL,, SURAT

In the result, ground nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.713/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2014-15) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

disallowance on account of trading addition as the assessee had failed to furnish the details for huge fall in Gross Profit declared in return of income (ROI). In the remand report, the assessing officer has pointed out that the value of closing stock of the silver for the A.Y. 2012-13 did not match with the value of opening stock

AMIYA SACHINDRA DEY,,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, VAPI

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

disallowed the same by invoking the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In appeal, the CIT(A) has also confirmed the findings of the AO by placing reliance on the ratio laid down in the case of ITO vs. Shri Parasmal Manekchand Jain in ITA No.2690/Ahd/2012 of ITAT, Ahmedabad dated 22.11.2013. The CIT(A) observed that

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. SMT. FALGUNI SANDIPKUMAR NAIK, SURAT

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 19, 20 & Ita 659/Srt/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court)

Section 68 on account of unsecured loan and interest payment of Rs. 4.320 crore which includes unsecured loan of Rs. 4.263 crore plus interest of Rs. 5,71,011. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer reported that interest payment to Vatsal Enterprise and amount of Rs. 739814/- from Chetankumar K Shah was from entry provider. In the remand report

BALA FILLING STATION,BHARUCH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shripawan Singh& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.822/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybridhearing) Bala Filling Station Vs. The Acit, Opp. Geb Substation, Jambusar Circle - 1, Road,Jambusar - 392150, Gujarat Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagfb8418F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 194C(6) were not applicable and the appellant submitted certificate from the transporter as additional evidence under rule 46A of the income tax ruled before the learned CIT Appeals (NFAC). 3. The conclusion the Appellant prays that addition of Rs.4,26,950/- be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the above Appellant reserves its right to make any amendment

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ATIN EXPORTS LLP, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Atin Exports Llp, Ward 2(3)(7), 4Th Floor, Shashvat Apartmental, Vs. Surat. Pipala Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. Pan No. Abbfa 6184 F Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

46A despite sufficient time and opportunity given to the assessee during the assessment proceedings and assessee was in no way prevented by sufficient cause to submit the detail/documents etc. to the A.O. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT vs. VIPULBHAI MANJIBHAI PATEL, 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.158/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(3), Vs. Vipulbhai Manjibhai Patel, Surat. 44, Laxmi Villa, Shubham Bunglows, Parle Point, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adwpp2674E (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Avkash C. Jariwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 07.11.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2

TEJAS ARVINDKUMAR DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.516/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Tejas Arvindkumar Desai Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 202/302, Guru Pushya Ward-1(3)(3), Surat, Income Tax Vs. Apartment, Maskati Plot, Officer, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Parle Point, Surat-395 007 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipn 4702 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing the whole appeal invoking Rule 46A of the IT Rules. 5) The appellant reserves right add, alter and withdraw any grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed his income for AY 2016- 17 on 30.03.2017 declaring total income at Rs.9,67,190/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued

VAMA INFRA,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

disallowed 5% of total expenses (60,03,932/-) on the ground that genuineness of the said expenses was doubtful and accordingly made addition of Rs. 3,00,197/- in the hands of the assessee under Section 69 of the Act. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the additions in the hands

M/S. VALENTINE CINE VISION LIMITED,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

section 43B of the Act. An addition of Rs. 3,18,66,883/- was made on this account. Further, the Assessing Officer proceeded to reject the books of accounts of the assessee and worked out the average gross profit for three years at 56.25% and made an addition of Rs. 1,53,48,584/- on this account. Apart from this

THE ITO, WARD-4(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. VALENTINE CINE VISION LIMITED,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

section 43B of the Act. An addition of Rs. 3,18,66,883/- was made on this account. Further, the Assessing Officer proceeded to reject the books of accounts of the assessee and worked out the average gross profit for three years at 56.25% and made an addition of Rs. 1,53,48,584/- on this account. Apart from this

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. SAFFRON GREEN INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.958/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Saffron Green International Pvt. बनाम/ 2(1)(3), Surat, Room No.221, Ltd. Shop No.3008, Shree Mahavir Vs. 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Textiles Puna Kumbhariya Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawcs 3137 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K. Kapadia, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 16.07.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short, ‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act On 21.03.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.5,70,70,621/- On Account Of 100% Bogus Purchase To 0.25% Of The Bogus Purchases & Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Ignoring The Facts That These Purchases Are Sham Transactions Fabricated Through Bogus Paper Concerns Of M/S. Savitri Trading Company & Mohammed Javed Mohammed Jabir Momin Which Were Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries.

section 250(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and Rule 46A(3) of the Income tax Rules, 1962. vi. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidences, which were not produced before the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings without appreciating the fact

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MAJURAT GATE SURAT vs. RAJESH MANJIBHAI SUTARIYA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

section 250(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and Rule 46A(3) of the income tax Rules, 1962, as the assessee himself admitted the fact before the appellate authority that he could not have been produced the details fully during the assessment proceedings. I.T.A No.679/Srt/2024, A.Y.2016-17 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

LATE MAHESH RAMANLAL MODI L/H MANISH MAHESH MODI,BHARUCH vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No. VII of appeal raised by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi, A.C.I.T., Through L-H Manish Mahesh Modi, Circle-1, Vs. Near Shakuntal Apartment, Dahej Bharuch. Bypass Road At Nandelav, Bharuch-392001 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adfpm 4030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

46A, particularly when the appellant demonstrated that he was deprived of the reasonable opportunity during the assessment. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justification in confirming the addition. (3) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the misapplied provisions of section 69A particularly when they were inapplicable to the facts

SHREE M.D. INDUSTRIES (NOW KNOWN AS M/S. PARAMESHWAR WEAVES),,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, OSD-4, RANGE-2,, SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shreem.D. Industries Income Tax Officer (Now Know As Osd-4, Vs M/S Parameshwar Weaves) Range-2, Surat D-137, Uma Industrial Estate, Udhna Udhyognagar, Surat Pan : Aapfs 9634 K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

disallowance of Rs.1.00 lakh of various expenses. The Ld. 3 Shree M.D.Industries (now know M/s Parameshwar Weaves) AR for the assessee further submits that at this stage he is not pressing substantial ground No.5 due to smallness of amount and that the case is very old. Considering the submission of Ld. AR of the assessee substantial ground No.5 raised