THE ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, SURAT vs. MICRO INKS LIMITED,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

119 of the Act, the Board hereby directs that in a case where the assessee fails to deduct tax under section 195 of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall determine the appropriate proportion of the sum chargeable to tax as mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 195 to ascertain the tax liability on which the deductor shall be deemed

SHRI PRAKASHBHAI PRAHLADBHAI GAMI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3129/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Prakashbhai Prahladbhai Gami, The Income Tax Officer, Gangakrupa Building, Ward-2(3)(3), Surat. B/H. Ramdev Complex, Pune Vs Village, Dist. Surat. [Pan: Adspp 6520 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish J Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 04.06.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)” Dated 07.09.2016 For A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The C.I.T.(Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Of Addition Of Rs.4,20,000/- To The Returned Income Of The Appellant Under The Head ‘Income From House Property’ By Estimating Notional Rent Of Rs.6,00,000/- In Respect Of Property Situated At Mumbai Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Properly. 2. The C.I.T(Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining Adhoc Disallowance Of Cash Expenditure To The Extent Of 10% I.E. Rs.5,07,680/- Out Of Total Expenditure Of Rs.50,76,800/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Net Profit Ratio Of The Appellant Is Improved In The Year Under Consideration. 3. The C.I.T(Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.86,318/- Being Depreciation On Two Motor Cars Held By The Appellant On The Allegation Of Personal Use.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is allegedly engaged in the business of cutting and polishing of diamond on job work basis. The assessee filed his return of income on 27.09.2013 for assessment year (AY) under consideration declaring income of Rs.14,39,800/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessment was finalized on 08.03.2016 under section

KANAIYALAL LABHUBHAI NAROLA,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurpose

house property, income from partnership-firm and income\nfrom other sources during the year under consideration. The return was processed\nu/s 143(1) of the Act on 19.03.2013. Thereafter, the case was reopened u/s 147 of\nthe Act after recording the reasons by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on\n28.03.2019. As per the information received, a search

SMT. JAYABEN GOVINDJI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court) Smt. Jayaben Govindji Patil, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No.2, Gurukrupa Bunglow, Opp. Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Sargam Shopping Center, Near Umra Surat Jakat Naka, Surat – 395001. Pan : Arfp1732Q Appellant Respondednt

2. authorities are that the assessee is an individual, filed her return of income for relevant assessment year on 25th September 2012. The case was selected for the scrutiny. During the assessment, the assessing officer from the computation of total income noted that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IB (10). The assessee claimed that she is 50% shareholder

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

119, Section 138 and section 189 of the Income Tax Act. On the basis of the above submissions the ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessment order for both the years cannot be branded as erroneous, thus, cannot be subject to revision under section 263. for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Satyam Textile Park 7. On the second

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

119, Section 138 and section 189 of the Income Tax Act. On the basis of the above submissions the ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessment order for both the years cannot be branded as erroneous, thus, cannot be subject to revision under section 263. for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Satyam Textile Park 7. On the second

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

119, Section 138 and section 189 of the Income Tax Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessment order in accepting the contention is not erroneous or legally unsustainable. 13. On the fourth issue identified by ld PCIT, which relates to non-verification cash expenses incurred on consolidation and conversion of land (in AY 2014-15 only

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

119, Section 138 and section 189 of the Income Tax Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessment order in accepting the contention is not erroneous or legally unsustainable. 13. On the fourth issue identified by ld PCIT, which relates to non-verification cash expenses incurred on consolidation and conversion of land (in AY 2014-15 only

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

119, Section 138 and section 189 of the Income Tax Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessment order in accepting the contention is not erroneous or legally unsustainable. 13. On the fourth issue identified by ld PCIT, which relates to non-verification cash expenses incurred on consolidation and conversion of land (in AY 2014-15 only

SEJAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

Properties 7,34,69,858 71,020 30,22,62,508 75,00,000 2.48 % Seva Infrastructure 4,07,37,200 3,73,986 42,02,75,928 45,00,000 1.07 % Private Limited Virgo Mercantile 35,60,379 23,34,727 18,83,13,147 45,00,000 2.39 % Private Limited Season Multitrade

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE RAM DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1841/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/S Shree Ram Developers, Of Income Tax, Central “Shrushti Row House”, Circle-2, Surat. Kosad, Surat 394 107. [Pan: Abkfs 4321 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से /Assessee By Shri Ashwin K.Parekh – Ca राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 08.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat Dated 11.04.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “[1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,16,65,000/- Made On Account Of Unexplained Income U/S.69A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 In Spite Of The Fact That Shri Ankurbhai Babariya, One Of The Trustworthy Person Of Shri Jayantibhai Babariay, A Partner Of M/S Shree Ram Developers Had Explained That Seized Documents From His Premise Are Related To Shrusti Row House Maintained By Him Which Was Later On Also Admitted By Him In His Statement On Oath & This Project Was Developed By The Assessee Firm I.E. M/S Shree Ram Developers. Also, There Was No Denial That On Money Has Been Seized In The Shrusti Row House Project. [2] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred To Held The Addition Of Rs.3,16,65,000/- Made On Account Of Dcit Vs. Shree Ram Developers /

property. A search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of Shri Ankur Babariya at 20, Ram Krupa Society, Saroli Road, Puna Gaon, Surat on 17.07.2012. From his premises, certain papers in the form of ledger accounts were seized as Annexure –A/1, A/3 and A/5. Shri Ankurbhai Gordhanbhai Babariya was working with the partners

M/S. MAC INDUSTRIES,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1036/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S. Mac Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2407/2, Gidc, Sarigam, Ward-6, Vapi. Ta- Umbergaon, Valsad-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2011M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora - Ar Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

sections 28 to 44D will be made subsequently. Income chargeable to tax under other heads, such as, ‘Income from house property’, ‘Income from capital gains’, and ‘Income from other sources’ will not be part of book profit. Therefore, the excess payment of remuneration of Rs.2,24,247/- was added back to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved

SHIVAM DEVELOPERS,GODADRA vs. ITO, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.76/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Shivam Developers, Vs. The Pr. Cit-2, 141, Khodiyar Residency, Surat. Godadra, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acffs4002D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2022

119 (Guj.) wherein it was held as follows: “2. The controversy relates to block period commencing from asst. yr. 1986-87 and ending on 6th Jan., 1996. The respondent assessee, a limited company, claimed deduction under ss. 80-I or 80-IA of the Act in relation to the total undisclosed income of the block period. The said claim

DINABEN DILIPKUMAR PATEL,NA vs. ASRIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

property merely on presumption basis without providing any evidence to assume the contrary. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned C1T(A) has erred in not accepting the claim of the Appellant and confirming the addition on presumptions, without providing any opportunity for rebuttal of allegations made

DINABEN DILIPKUMAR PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

property merely on presumption basis without providing any evidence to assume the contrary. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned C1T(A) has erred in not accepting the claim of the Appellant and confirming the addition on presumptions, without providing any opportunity for rebuttal of allegations made

M/S. MAYUR CONSTRUCTION,,VALSAD vs. THE ACIT., VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 1042/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mayur Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad. 110, Amar Chamber,Valsad. S [Pan: Aadfm 9859 L] . अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

properties. The assessee filed its Return of Income for A.Y. 2010- 11 on 27.09.2010 declaring income of Rs.1.08 crores. In the computation of income the assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of Rs.24,66,080/-. 3. A survey under section 133A was carried out at the business premises of assessee on 10.11.2009. During survey certain incriminating material

SHRI CHETANKUMAR VINODBHAI PATEL,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2695/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Chetankumar Vinodbhai Patel, V. Income Tax Officer, 14, Bapunagar Society, Luncikui, Ward-1, Navsari. Navsari. [Pan: Amypp 9477 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

2 of 5 has not furnished any explanation or objection and agreed for proposed addition of Rs.9,00,000/- and therefore the same was added to total income. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). Wherein it was submitted that the assessee has furnished cash summary for the year 2011-12, the details