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

investment and therefore, in absence of any adverse inference to the\nassessee in the seized material, the details found cannot be treated to be that\nof the assessee and addition cannot be made.\n\n24. On the addition of Rs.1,01,57,149/- which relates to unexplained expenditure\nfor renovation of house, the Id CIT(A) noted that assessee

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

unexplained investment. The assessee filed its reply dated 20/12/2019. In the reply, the assessee submitted that in show cause notice, the difference Rs. 53,67,940/- pointed out on account of investment in immovable property. The assessee stated that they have not purchased any new immovable property nor any capital expenditure was incurred on the renovation of Bungalow. The assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI JETHABHAI DANABHAI VADHER, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas assessee’s

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am

unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act for the investment in LIC policies, it is submitted that out of the total premium of Rs.2,31,465/- the assessee has shown Rs.1,04,835/- as premium paid in the computation of income. The remaining amount of Rs.97,771/ is paid by the spouse of the assessee Smt. Dakshaben Jethabhai Vadher

THE ITO, WARD-1,, NA vs. ARIVS.SHRI ANILKUMAR AMRUTLAL CHAHWALA, NAVSARI

In the result, this ground of appeal is rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2078/Ahd/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1003/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Amrutlal Chahwala, Ward-(1), Navsari. 102, Trimurti Complex, Vijalpore, Navsari. [Pan: Abnpc 6308 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

disallowance of labour expenses. (3) The CIT (A) also erred in law and facts in directing to delete the addition of Rs. 7,00,330/- made on account of unexplained investment

VIRENDRA MANAKCHAND BEGANI (HUF),SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(4), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Virendra Manakchand Begani (Huf), I.T.O., 3-B, Shubh Laxmi Appt., City Light Ward-1(3)(4), Vs. Road, Surat-395007, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Aaihv 4669 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowance of consultancy expenses. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 12,16,000/- as unexplained investment

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, SURAT vs. M/S. BALAR EXPORTS,, 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’S.3188 & 3189/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 1.M/S. Balar Exports, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Balar Building, Opp. Surat. Panchratna Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] 2.M/S. Balar Exports, 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Balar Building, Opp. Income Tax, Central Panchratna Tower, Lambe Circle-1, Surat. Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah - Ca Shri Srinivas T. Bidari - Cit(D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 11.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 04.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Ahmedabad (In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 19.10.2011 For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Dated 31.12.2010 Of Balar Exports V. Dcit-Cc-1-Surat & Vice- Versa /I.T.A.No’S. 3189 & 3188/Ahd/2011/A.Y.2008-09 Page 2 Of 49

investment of the excess stock of polished diamonds at the time of survey, hence, no addition can be made. Therefore, CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition by giving detailed findings in the appellate order. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the CIT (A) observed that there were repetitive

M/S. BALAR EXPORTS,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT. CIRCLE-1,, 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’S.3188 & 3189/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 1.M/S. Balar Exports, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Balar Building, Opp. Surat. Panchratna Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] 2.M/S. Balar Exports, 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Balar Building, Opp. Income Tax, Central Panchratna Tower, Lambe Circle-1, Surat. Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah - Ca Shri Srinivas T. Bidari - Cit(D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 11.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 04.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Ahmedabad (In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 19.10.2011 For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Dated 31.12.2010 Of Balar Exports V. Dcit-Cc-1-Surat & Vice- Versa /I.T.A.No’S. 3189 & 3188/Ahd/2011/A.Y.2008-09 Page 2 Of 49

investment of the excess stock of polished diamonds at the time of survey, hence, no addition can be made. Therefore, CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition by giving detailed findings in the appellate order. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the CIT (A) observed that there were repetitive

SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

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

unexplained investment involved as cash deposits are represented in the sales made by the assessee which is duly reflected in the assessee's books of account. In case of the bullion, it cannot be said that assessee would receive the abnormal profit as margin of profit involved in trading of bullion is very low of about 1% only. The assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, SURAT vs. SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

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

unexplained investment involved as cash deposits are represented in the sales made by the assessee which is duly reflected in the assessee's books of account. In case of the bullion, it cannot be said that assessee would receive the abnormal profit as margin of profit involved in trading of bullion is very low of about 1% only. The assessee

DEEPESH VISHNU AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.168/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (Hybrid Hearing) Depesh Vishnu Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- Vs. Road, Surat-395 007 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Depesh Vishnu Agarwal बनाम/ 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. Vs. 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa 2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025

disallowed Rs.1,15,37,991/- u/s 69 of the Act which pertains to unexplained investment. The Ld. AR has relied

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. DEEPESH VISHNU AGARWAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.168/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (Hybrid Hearing) Depesh Vishnu Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- Vs. Road, Surat-395 007 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Depesh Vishnu Agarwal बनाम/ 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. Vs. 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa 2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025

disallowed Rs.1,15,37,991/- u/s 69 of the Act which pertains to unexplained investment. The Ld. AR has relied

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

unexplained cash credit. We find that similar ground of Revenue’s appeal raised in Ground No.5 in IT(SS)A No.01/SRT/2021 for assessment year 2010-11, which we have already dismissed by affirming the order of Ld. CIT(A) on legal issue as well as on merit. Therefore, following the principle of consistency this ground of Revenue’s appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, ADAJAN vs. ABHISHEK NAVNIT DOSHI , MAHIDHARPURA

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Ito, Abhishek Navnit Doshi, 405, Income Tax Office, Anavil 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Business Centre, Hazira Road, Vs. Jin Shanti Bldg. Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395003. Surat-395009. Pan No. Afhpd 0064 M Appellant Respondent

unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and made an addition of 100% of the purchases so found to be Act and made an addition of 100% of the purchases so found to be Act and made an addition of 100% of the purchases so found to be fictitious.. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), following

SHAKTI DEVELOPERS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. He also added unsecured loan of Rs.3,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the above order of AO u/s 144 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before CIT( A). 4. Before CIT(A), assessee submitted that he could not file reply because physical copy of the notices were

MADHVI AJITKUMAR RANKA ,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Vs. Acit, 88, Sunder Nagar, Jamalpore, Navsari Circle, Navsari – 396445 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahfpr5791K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

investment. 12.1 As regards the additions made on unexplained gifts, unexplained commission income and disallowance of interest u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, the ld. AR submitted

THE ITO-WARD-1(2),, BHARUCH vs. SHRI MOHMEDSAJID A. SAIYAD,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri.Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.857/A/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Vs. Shri. Mohmedsajid A. Saiyed, Bharuch-392001 B-13, Apsara Apartment, Kasak, Bharuch-392001. [Pan: Alvps5372H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By Shri Hemant Suthar – Ca राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri B.P.K. Panda – Ld. Sr.Dr

unexplained made addition, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure of Rs.37,000/- and added into the total income of the Assessee. Hence, the Assessee computed total taxable income at Rs.93,88,560/-. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT (A) who considering his submissions partly allowed the appeal. Thereby, the Ld. CIT (A) restricted the addition

SHRI RAMESH LALJIBHAI POLRA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2320 & 2290/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Vs. 1. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 1. The Deputy Commissioner 11, Haridarshan Society, Of Income Tax, Gajera School Circle, Central Circle-2, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] 2. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 2. The Deputy 11, Haridarshan Society, Commissioner Of Income Gajera School Circle, Surat. Tax,Central Circle-2, [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] Surat. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

investment was not explained, the addition was justified. 3. The grounds of appeal( revised) raised by the Assessee in ITA No.2290/Ahd/2016 read as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT vs. SHRI RAMESH L. POLRA,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2320 & 2290/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Vs. 1. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 1. The Deputy Commissioner 11, Haridarshan Society, Of Income Tax, Gajera School Circle, Central Circle-2, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] 2. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 2. The Deputy 11, Haridarshan Society, Commissioner Of Income Gajera School Circle, Surat. Tax,Central Circle-2, [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] Surat. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

investment was not explained, the addition was justified. 3. The grounds of appeal( revised) raised by the Assessee in ITA No.2290/Ahd/2016 read as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making