MICRO INKS PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS MICRO INKS LTD.),VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ( INTL. TAXN.), SURAT

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

131,000 Steinberg New Zealand Ltd. Mew Zealand ITO,(Int. Taxation), Surat Vs. Micro Inks Ltd.: Vice-Versa /ITA No’s.2375 & 2707/AHD/2014 for A.Y. 2012-13 Page 8 of 27 DBS Bank Ltd., Singapore US $ Hostmann- US $ 4,000,000 4,000,000 Steinberg Inc., USA Standard Chartered Bank, UK US $ Hostmann- US $ 5,000,000 5,000,000 Steinberg

M/S. ASHADEEP DEVELOPERS,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1337/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000 M/S. Ashadeep Developers, Income Tax Officer, Shyam Nagar-4, Near Ward-1, Navsari Seventh Day High School, Vijalpore, Navsari 396450 Pan: Aaaaa 9272 F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

131 (1)(d) , the DVO undertook the valuation of the property and submitted report dated 29.11.2000 (PB-1 to 6)at Rs.71,71,225. Based on which, the Department has initiated proceeding under section 148 of the Act on 16.01.2006. (PB-23). Therefore, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that reference to DVO could be made when assessment proceedings

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, SURAT, SURAT vs. SHIRI ASHESH NANALAL DOSHI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AY 2016-17 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 07/Srt /2021 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

1) of the Act, proceeded for assessment. The Assessing Officer extracted the relevant clause on MOU and the statement of Shri Aagam V. Vadecha in the assessment order. As per MOU, the assessee was having 24% share in the land and Param Properties was having 4% share. The partner of Param Properties has stated that they made part payment

SHRI FARSURAM RATILAL BHAMWALA,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Cit(A) After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

house property located at Bunglow no. 3 Pritamnager - 1 society, Maktampur, Bharuch for a total consideration Rs. 1.5 crores out of which Rs. 75 lacs were paid in FY 2008-09 (Rs 25 lacs each). Q11: What is the source of your payment of Rs. 25 lacs during FY 2008-09 to ShriFarsuram R Bhamwala? A11: I have paid

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

property. At present his annual statement. income is approximately Rs.2 Lac. There is no other source of income. Earlier, he retired from swarnrekha enterprises. Hatia, Ranchi and presently DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat Vs. Kejriwal Industries Ltd.,/ITA No.1509/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 Page 41 of 49 practicing in sales tax, income tax matters. 22 Mona Rs.2

SUNI DAVIS THAKOLKKARAN,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.548/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Suni Davis Thakolkkaran Income Tax Officer, Ward- A-35, Narayan Park, Hazira 2(3)(6), Surat, 4Th Floor, Vs Main Road, Ichhapore, Surat- Aayakar Bhavan, Anavil 394510 Business Centre, Adajan- Pan : Adhpt 7419 G Hazira Road, Surat-395009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

131 was issued upon the assessee on 14.12.2017, which was not responded by assessee. The Assessing Officer after recording reasons that income of assessee to the extent of credit in the bank account at Rs.88,66,961/- has escaped assessment. Further Notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee. The assessee in response filed return of income

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

housing society in which the builder is also one of the member and can get confirmation from the owner easily. W can get confirmation from the owner easily. While the appellant has hile the appellant has not provided any confirmation letter from the customers, merely not provided any confirmation letter from the customers, merely not provided any confirmation letter from

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

SHRI PRAKASH KAKALDAS SHAH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this part of ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Prakash Kakaldas Shah, The Ito, Ward-1(3)(4), 702, Sterling Apartment, Nr. Priya Surat. Vs. Hotel, Athwagate, Surat – 395003. Pan : Abips4373F Appellant Respondednt

131 for under section 133(6) was issued by Assessing Officer has not inspector was deputed to verify the genuineness of rental income. In subsequent year, the tenant of the office premises started business in the name of J. Nathalal Impex, a partnership firm and executed a rent agreement wherein the said tenant is a partner

DHANSUKHLAL RAMANBHAI MALI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(3)(1), 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) Dhansukhlal Ramanbhai Mali, I.T.O., 10, Mali Faliya, Mota Varachha, Ward-2(3)(1), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Aqppm 7151 B Appellant Respondednt

1)(c). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the said penal actions to be dropped. (4) The appellant may be permitted to rectify to amend to modify grounds of appeal duly raised and to introduce new grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is individual and engaged in the business

SHRI ARVINDBHAI LALLUBHAI LAKHANKIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.962/Ahd/2016; "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Arvindbhai Lallubhai V Asst. Commissioner Of Lakhankiya, B-78, Hans Society, S Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aadpl 3819 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

properties. The addition should be deleted. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a building contractor engaged in construction of raw houses. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 on 04.08.2006 declaring income of Rs.26,11,859/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 31.05.2007, accepting

M/S. PATEL AMBALAL HARGOVANDAS & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

house property at Surat were found. However, there were no other evidences relating to expenditure or investment especially to the tune of Rs.2.82 Crores., were found. If the A.O's estimation that three zeros have to be added to the figures on the paper, there should have been some evidences in the form of bills, vouchers, investments etc. found

HASMUKH KANJIBHAI TADHANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Hasmukh Kanjibhai Tadhani, Vs. The Ito, 170, Vaikunth Dham Society, Ward – 3(3)(3), Laxmikant Ashram Road, Surat Katargam, Surat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafpt1257K (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) of the Act, on 14.08.2019 and 21.09.2019, calling for certain details as per Annexure to the said notice. 5. In response to the above said notice, the assessee filed a written submission. As regards the source of cash deposited in bank accounts during the demonetization period, the assessee has stated that he had cash on hand, as well

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

1. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Navsari [in short “the CIT(A)”] dated 11-08-2016, for the assessment year 2012-13. Ground No.1 & 2 relates to confirming the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- 2. made towards unexplained investment in appellant’s bank account. The AO noticed that the assessee has made bank cash deposits in the 3. bank account

SANJAYKUMAR TIKAMCHAND BUCHA,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri T. R Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.647/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Shri Sanjaykumar Tikamchand Bucha, Vs. Acit, 521, Goodluck Market, Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Surat, Gujarat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abqpb9320F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit -Dr Date Of Hearing 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘in short, the Act’) dated 06.02.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [in short “the CIT(A)”] for the assessment year (AY) 2013-14. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

BHADRABALA DHIMANTRAI JOSHI,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

properties which fell in the category of stock-in-trade and not capital asset. Therefore, the profit on such sale was not eligible for exemption from taxation. In view of the same, the claim of tax exemption made in subsection 2(14)(iii) of the Act of Rs.1,21,92,898/- was rejected and the same was added as business