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

House Ltd V/s. Union of India reported in 349 ITR 566. The observation of the Honorable Gujarat High court reported in 348 ITR 391 in reproduced hereunder:- "13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the benefit based on pendency of the proceedings of assessment and discrimination based thereon definitely violates Article

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI M LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(3), SURAT

In the result, ground no.3 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.672/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) The Amroli Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Dcit, Karyakari Sahkari M. Ltd., Circle – 2(3), Utran Amroli, Taluka Choryasi, Surat Surat – 394105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat3043M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 18/12/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

71 : "...In a taxing Act, one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used," 7. The principle

MITSU PRAFUL DOSHI,SURAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Mitsu Praful Doshi, Pr.C.I.T., 3Rd Floor, Jalnidhi Complex, Opp. Surat-1, Vs. Bahumali Building, Nanpura, Surat. Surat-395001. Pan: Afmpd 4450 N Appellant Respondednt

house is also used for professional purpose by partnership firm-hospital, wherein the assessee is a partner and ninth property at Flat No. H-201, Pragati Nagar is self-occupied property. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that none of the properties other than Rajdeep flat is let out by the assessee. 7. The ld. AR for the assessee

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs. ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

In the result, additional grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Income Tax Officer 1,Vrushal Nagar, Opp. (International Taxation), 107, 1St Vs. Ktargam Police Station, Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Katargam Road, Surat-35004 Adajan-Hazira Road, Opp. Star Bazar, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abepg 7339 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

71,939/- Rs.38,848/- Rs.38,848/- (l/7th share purchase in respect of land at block (Rs.59,221/- No. 344 *1024/223) of assessee) Less: Indexed cost of Rs.15,56,255/- Rs.3,11,251/- Rs.3,11,251/- (l/5th share purchase in respect of land at block (Rs.3,38,911/- No. 345 *1024/223) of assessee) Long Term Capital gains taxable

CHAITALI SURIL UDESHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no. 3 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Chaitali Suril Udeshi, I.T.O., A-902, Samanvay Residency, Opp: Safal Ward-3(1)(2), Vs. Parisar-2, South Bopal Daskroi, Surat. Ahmedabad, Gujarat (India). Pan No. Ahgpd 9813 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

71,440/-. The Assessing Officer after serving notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) proceeded for assessment. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee sold flat bearing No. A-606, 6th Floor, Evening Glory Co. Op Housing Limited, Raheja Vihar, Tungwa Powai, Mumbai-400072 on 03/11/2010 for the sale

SMT. NAYANABEN F. PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT-1, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed,

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Smt. Nayanaben F. Patel, Pr.C.I.T. 1, Indraprashtha Society, Surat-1, Vs. Nr. Puna Patiya, Magob, Surat. Surat-395010. Pan: Bhrpp 4706 K Appellant Respondednt

property. The copy of notice under Section 143(2) dated 12/09/2018 is filed on record. The Assessing Officer during the assessment, issued notice under Section 142(1) dated 20/11/2018. In the said notice in question No. 4, the Assessing Officer raised the issue of long term capital gain and required copy of sale deed and copy of purchase deed

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

Housing Society Ltd. [2009] 314 ITR 272 (Gujarat) (PB-124), Manjusha Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 314 ITR 263 (Gujarat) and ITO v. Agencies Rajasthan (P) Ltd. [ 2008] 117 (JP) 542(PB-136) contended that the AO did not have authority to refer the matter to DVO under section 131 (1)(d) of the Act on 06.08.1999 when

ACIT, CIR-1(3), SURAT vs. PRAVIN PANNALAL SHAH, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pravin Pannalal Shah Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Income-Tax, Circle-1(3, Vs. Surat-395007 Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrps 1045 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

house property’, income from ‘business and profession’ and income from ‘other sources’ comprising interest income. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed that assessee has purchased a property amounting to Rs.6,37,97,760/- during the assessment year under consideration. The source of the funds are mostly loans and gifts received by the assessee from various persons during

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.

2,28,000/-. Q10: During FY 2008-09 did you have any financial transactions with ShriFarsuram R Bhamwala? If yes, give details? A10: Yes, during FY 2008-09 I had entered into an agreement (banakhat) with ShriFarsuram R Bhamwala - along with my cousin brother named Sh. KishorUpendra Joshi & cousin sister named Kum. JyotibenRashmikantPandya for purchase of house property located

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

section 68 of the Act by the AO. We further observed that the ld. CIT (A) has examined each and 19. every creditors/ lenders and given his factual findings of enquiry DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat Vs. Kejriwal Industries Ltd.,/ITA No.1509/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 Page 38 of 49 report as well as facts of each lenders

KAMLESH KUMAR GADIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1 Ground-1: On the facts and the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer

NAVINCHANDRA K. PATEL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 , SURAT, 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.57/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Navinchandra K. Patel, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. 5, Kaaliytawadi Faliya, At Post Saniya Hemad, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Birpp6292D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 31.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act Setting Aside The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 24.11.2017 For The Year Under Consideration Although Said Order Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous On The Ground That Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Of Property Is Under Assessed By Rs.2,12,58,035/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order

71,620/-. Thereafter, the assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS; and scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 24.11.2017 accepting return of income. 4. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat (in short “ld. PCIT”], exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On verification

GANI MOHAMMAD POPAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3, VAPI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Popat Yasin Abdulganibhai, I.T.O., Son & L/H Of Late Gani Mohammad Ward-3, Vs. Popat, Vapi. Bombay Market, Zanda Chowk, Near S.T. Bus Depot, Vapi. Pan No. Akvpp 0747 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

71 taxmann.com 108 (Amritsar Trib) 13. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee was a senior citizen and has fully explained about the source of cash deposit. The assessee received Rs. 2.89 lacs from his son in law which was fully explained, Rs. 2.00 las was received from his sister

BILAKHIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,VAPI vs. THE ACIT.,VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

House, Assistant Commissioner of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [PAN: AADCS 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, CA िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri O. P. Singh CIT (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by 12.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date of hearing

BILAKHIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

House, Assistant Commissioner of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [PAN: AADCS 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, CA िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri O. P. Singh CIT (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by 12.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date of hearing

BILAKHIA HOLDING P LTD,VAPI vs. THE JT.CIT.,VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

House, Assistant Commissioner of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [PAN: AADCS 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, CA िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri O. P. Singh CIT (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by 12.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date of hearing

BILAKHIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE JT.CIT.,VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.507/Ahd/2013: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A.No.1415Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1416/Ahd/2015:िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.795/Ahd/2016: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bialkhia Holdings Pvt. Vs. Addl.Cit Range - Vapi / Ltd., Bilakhia House, Assistant Commissioner Of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [Pan: Aadcs 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

House, Assistant Commissioner of Muktanand Marg, Chala Income Tax Vapi Circle Vapi, Vapi, Gujarat. Shivam Commercial Complex, [PAN: AADCS 4420 J] National Highway No.8, Vapi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, CA िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri O. P. Singh CIT (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by 12.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date of hearing

SHRI HEMRAJSINH KIRANSINH RATHOD,DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

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.239/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Hemrajsinh Kiransinh Rathod, Vs. The Pcit, Krishna Petroleum, Iocl Dealer, Valsad Near Jalaram Temple, Waghdhara Road, Village Dadra - 396193, Ut Of Dadra & Nagar Haveli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aihpr4957N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 14/08/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2023

properties of business. Since said overdraft facility was to manage day to day business of the assessee, the loan processing charges paid of Rs.59326/- is a revenue nature, and it is not a capital nature and accordingly, the assessee had debited said processing charges to his profit and loss a/c. We further submit that; We submit that Assessee's return

ISHVARBHAI LALLUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1046/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Ishvarbhai Lallubhai Patel, Vs. The Assessment Unit, House No.3, Navapara Village Kosad, Nfac, Surat - 394107 Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Caepp6924J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Dinesh Ramani, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2025

House No.3, Navapara Village Kosad, NFAC, Surat - 394107 Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: CAEPP6924J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Dinesh Ramani, CA Respondent by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 10/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section