RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 40A(3) are thus reversed and cancelled “ From the above judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi, in the case of Shakti Singh Gulia(supra), it is vivid that the business expediency to make payment in cash should be reasonably established by the assessee. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded from the ambit

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 40A(3) are thus reversed and cancelled “ From the above judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi, in the case of Shakti Singh Gulia(supra), it is vivid that the business expediency to make payment in cash should be reasonably established by the assessee. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded from the ambit

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

Section 40A(3) are thus reversed and cancelled “ From the above judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi, in the case of Shakti Singh Gulia(supra), it is vivid that the business expediency to make payment in cash should be reasonably established by the assessee. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded from the ambit

MANISH PACKAGING PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.192/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, Gantiwala Compound, Near A S Surat Motors, A. K. Road, Surat - 395008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm6018Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) 13/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2023

disallowable u/s. 80IA r.w. Rule 18BBE of the IT Rules. ITA No.192/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd. 3. It is therefore prayed that above order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 may please be quashed. 4. Appellate craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The facts

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT.LTD.,,SILVASA vs. THE ACIT.,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.380/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial Income Tax, S. Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.353/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial S. Income Tax, Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 & (A.Y.) 2011-12, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Order & Penalty Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act & Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

801/- and Rs.46,51,472/- from profits eligible for section 80IB deduction. The case file indicates that the assessee has also filed alternative / additional grounds vis-a-vis its first substantive ground by filing a petition dated 24.2.2015 reading as under: "In regard to the captioned appeal proceedings before your honours, we would like to humbly request to permit

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT.LTD.,,SILVASA vs. THE DCIT.,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.380/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial Income Tax, S. Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.353/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial S. Income Tax, Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 & (A.Y.) 2011-12, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Order & Penalty Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act & Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

801/- and Rs.46,51,472/- from profits eligible for section 80IB deduction. The case file indicates that the assessee has also filed alternative / additional grounds vis-a-vis its first substantive ground by filing a petition dated 24.2.2015 reading as under: "In regard to the captioned appeal proceedings before your honours, we would like to humbly request to permit

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

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

801, Rajhans Height, Ward- 3(3)(5) Vs. Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Suart. Surat-395003. (ii) 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Gujjarfalia, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. PAN : ACUPJ 0819 L APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Revenue by Shri H.P. Meena, CIT-DR & Shri Vinod Kumar (Sr.DR) Assessee by Shri Himanshu Gandhi, C.A. Date of hearing 21/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 25/07/2022 Order under section

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

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

801, Rajhans Height, Ward- 3(3)(5) Vs. Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Suart. Surat-395003. (ii) 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Gujjarfalia, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. PAN : ACUPJ 0819 L APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Revenue by Shri H.P. Meena, CIT-DR & Shri Vinod Kumar (Sr.DR) Assessee by Shri Himanshu Gandhi, C.A. Date of hearing 21/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 25/07/2022 Order under section

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

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

801, Rajhans Height, Ward- 3(3)(5) Vs. Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Suart. Surat-395003. (ii) 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Gujjarfalia, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. PAN : ACUPJ 0819 L APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Revenue by Shri H.P. Meena, CIT-DR & Shri Vinod Kumar (Sr.DR) Assessee by Shri Himanshu Gandhi, C.A. Date of hearing 21/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 25/07/2022 Order under section

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. R K SHAH PROJECTS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.55/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S R.K.Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aditya Complex, Nr. Tax., Circle-2(1)(1), Room No.216, Vs. Kapadia Health Club, Bhatar Road, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 8584 Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

disallowed. ITA No.55/SRT/2020 A.Y. 13-14 M/s R.K. Shah Project Pvt. Ltd 9. Learned DR for the Revenue further took us through the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, which reads as under: “Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee

VISHWAS BUILDERS,OPERA PALACE vs. ACIT, CIR 2(2), SURAT, MAJURAGATE, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vishwas Builders, Acit, Cir 2(2), Laskana Kholvad Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Gujarat-395004. Vs. Majuragate, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aakfv 9174 A Appellant Respondent

disallowed.” 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee placed on Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee placed on Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee placed on record a paper book comprising pages 1 to 757, containing copies of record a paper book comprising pages 1 to 757, containing copies of record a paper book

KISHOR RAMESHBHAI MEHTA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

disallowance of expenses on ad hoc basis. 10. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear, hence, the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO for sake of the interest

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ), SURAT, SURAT vs. M/S. STAR RAYS,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Income Tax Officer Star Rays, (International Taxation), Shivam Chambers, Vs Surat. Khand Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat – 395009. Pan: Aamfs 1942 B Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

disallowance by the AO. vi) That the department craves leave to add or alter any further grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of cutting and polishing of diamond and export of diamonds. The specific diamonds are certified by Gemmological Institute of America

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

disallowance of commission of Rs.9,17,667/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the request of the assessee to covert his unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.4,58,83,371/- and claim bogus exemption? iv) On the facts and in the circumstances

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

disallowance of commission of Rs.9,17,667/- purportedly incurred by the assessee towards payment to brokers who allegedly entered into the share transactions at the request of the assessee to covert his unaccounted income in the form of fictitious Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.4,58,83,371/- and claim bogus exemption? iv) On the facts and in the circumstances

THE ITO, WARD -2(2)(2),, SURAT vs. SMT. HANSABEN BIPIINKUMAR KOTHARI,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.613/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt.Hansaben Bipinkumar Kothari, Ward-2(2)(2), Surat. 806-C, Kanaknidhi Apartment, Timliawad, Nanpura, Surat. [Pan: Adgpk 1894 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

disallowance on account of interest. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.AO the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and ld.CIT(A) considered the case of both the parties and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the additions. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue has filed this appeal before this