DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Housing Development Company (supra) as well as the other decisions, held thus: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Housing Development Company (supra) as well as the other decisions, held thus: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

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

vii) Non-initiation of penalty under section 271B&271D of the Act ( in all three AYs),  (viii) Non-verification of loan availed from ManishbhaiSheladiya (in AY 2014-15 only). 4. The ld. PCIT recorded that the assessee was given opportunity of being heard on 05.03.2021 and on 12.03.2021, however, the assessee neither attended the hearing nor filed written submission

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

vii) Non-initiation of penalty under section 271B&271D of the Act ( in all three AYs),  (viii) Non-verification of loan availed from ManishbhaiSheladiya (in AY 2014-15 only). 4. The ld. PCIT recorded that the assessee was given opportunity of being heard on 05.03.2021 and on 12.03.2021, however, the assessee neither attended the hearing nor filed written submission

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

vii) Non-initiation of penalty under section 271B&271D of the Act ( in all three AYs),  (viii) Non-verification of loan availed from ManishbhaiSheladiya (in AY 2014-15 only). 4. The ld. PCIT recorded that the assessee was given opportunity of being heard on 05.03.2021 and on 12.03.2021, however, the assessee neither attended the hearing nor filed written submission

M/S. MAROLI BAZAR VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE , NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

56,28,749/- as against assessee's claim of Rs.65,37,224/-. On being asked to assessee as to why the excess claim should not be disallowed, the assessee reiterated the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. [201 CTR 243(Guj)] in which

MAROLI BAZAAR VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

56,28,749/- as against assessee's claim of Rs.65,37,224/-. On being asked to assessee as to why the excess claim should not be disallowed, the assessee reiterated the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. [201 CTR 243(Guj)] in which

KHAREL VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

56,28,749/- as against assessee's claim of Rs.65,37,224/-. On being asked to assessee as to why the excess claim should not be disallowed, the assessee reiterated the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. [201 CTR 243(Guj)] in which

KHAREL VIBHAG V. V. K.S. M. LIMITED,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

56,28,749/- as against assessee's claim of Rs.65,37,224/-. On being asked to assessee as to why the excess claim should not be disallowed, the assessee reiterated the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. [201 CTR 243(Guj)] in which

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

56 persons. Out of these, 54 persons are DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat Vs. Kejriwal Industries Ltd.,/ITA No.1509/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 Page 25 of 49 from Ranchi, Jharkhand and remaining two namely Kejriwal Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Kejriwal Integrated Textile Park Pvt. Ltd. are the sister concern of the assessee from Surat

REKHA AJAYKUMAR AGRAWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX, CIR.1(2), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.356/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha Ajaykumar Agrawal Assistant Commissioner Of 229-230, Ashoka Tower, Ring Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Aayakar Vs. Road,Surat-395002 Bhavan, N. Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaspa 2993 A (Assessee ) (Respondent)

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) has erred in applying section 56(2)(vii)(b), though the transaction was commenced at a time when the such provision was not in the statute. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming in addition of Rs.1,89,000/- made u/s 23(4) of the Act on account of Deemed

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, VAPI vs. M/S. KRIMPI DISTILLERY, NANI DAMAN

In the result, appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am करअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.01To 06/Srt/2017& आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.47/Srt/2017 "तया"ेयसं./Cross Objection Nos.02To 08/Srt/2018 [A/O In It(Ss)A Nos.01 To 06/Srt/2017 & Ita No.47/Srt/2017] (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Krimpi Distillery, Vapi. Plot No.34-37, Supreme Ind. Estate, Bhimpore, Nani Daman- 396210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofm6580H अपीलाथ" /Applicant ""यथ"/Respondent/"तया"ेपक/Co- Objector

56,470/- 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the incriminating material found and seized during the course of search. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee-company has gained huge profit from suppressed sales

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)

56 of the Act for proposing to tax excess securities premium is applicable from 01.04.2013 i.e. from and on 01.04.2013 and not retrospectively. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions:  CIT v/s. Anshika Consultants Pvt. Ltd. [62 taxmann.com 192] (Del.) (HC)  Green Infra Ltd. v/s. ITO [78 taxmann.com 340] (Bom.) (HC) Non – Applicability of judgment of NRA Iron & Steel

HEMANT NARESH AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

vii) Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs. ITO (2010) 128 TTJ 36 (Ahd.); (viii) Anil Jaggi vs. ACIT Circle 30 (1)-Mumbai; (ix) CIT Central vs. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 100 taxmann.com 526 (SC) and (x) ITO vs. Bharat A. Mehta (2015) 60 taxmann.com 31 (Guj.). 7.2 In view of the above decisions, the Ld. AR submitted that rates of all shops