SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

carried out on 03.10.2013 in the case of the Bhanwarlal Jain Group, wherein it was found that the group was issuing accommodation entries relating to bogus purchases and sales through benami concerns. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, the AO observed that the assessee had allegedly received bogus purchase entries amounting

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

loss to the Revenue. I am of the view that main group has accepted the impugned transaction as their income, therefore, protective addition in the hands of the ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala assessee needs to be deleted. Based on this factual position, I delete the protective addition of Rs.38,12,933/-, in the hands of the assessee

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

loss to the Revenue. I am of the view that main group has accepted the impugned transaction as their income, therefore, protective addition in the hands of the ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala assessee needs to be deleted. Based on this factual position, I delete the protective addition of Rs.38,12,933/-, in the hands of the assessee

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

loss to the Revenue. I am of the view that main group has accepted the impugned transaction as their income, therefore, protective addition in the hands of the ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala assessee needs to be deleted. Based on this factual position, I delete the protective addition of Rs.38,12,933/-, in the hands of the assessee

AKSHAR GEMS,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.3(2), 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.24/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) Akshar Gems, Assistant Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Shreeji Diamond Apartment, Vs. Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Nandu Doshi Ni Wadi, Vastadevdi Road, Aaykar Bhavan Nr.Majura Katargam, Surat – 395004 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarfa3697A Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

loss to the Revenue. Since a default by not furnishing the requisite form 15CA/certificate in 9 remittance before the Assessing Officer in respect of foreign remittance was committed by the assessee, therefore, liable for levy of penalty. The assessee has failed to substantiate its bona fide and therefore penalty should be imposed. 9. We have heard both the parties

GTPL RAJWADI NETWORK PVT. LTD.,BAMROLI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has restricted the penalty being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. That is, the penalty amount was restricted by ld CIT(A) to Rs.1,56,587/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of ld CIT(A), the assessee

SANJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.618/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary Huf, Vs. The Ito, 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward- 2(3)(6), Jadakadi, Mahidharpura, Surat Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

carry a clear implication over the income of the assessee, Shri Rajendra Jain and Shri Surendra Jain in their statements recorded on oath during the search proceedings, has categorically admitted that they were operating the business of providing accommodation entries through various companies/firms/concerns. Sanjay Choudhary (prop. Mayank Impex) is one of the concerns in which Rajendra Jain & Surendra Jain

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

carried out a comparison of the Profit & loss account and Balance Sheets of the AEs, the same would had revealed the gross profit margins and levels of profitability earned by the AEs in their businesses, and as such any abnormal variation in their gross profitability would had revealed the aberrations in the international transactions. 20. We further find that

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

carried out a comparison of the Profit & loss account and Balance Sheets of the AEs, the same would had revealed the gross profit margins and levels of profitability earned by the AEs in their businesses, and as such any abnormal variation in their gross profitability would had revealed the aberrations in the international transactions. 20. We further find that

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.176 To 178/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Antrix Diamond Exports Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 1006, Free Press Mark, Raheja Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaca3403G (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Ms Ekta Sanghvi, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

carried out a comparison of the Profit & loss account and Balance Sheets of the AEs, the same would had revealed the gross profit margins and levels of profitability earned by the AEs in their businesses, and as such any abnormal variation in their gross profitability would had revealed the aberrations in the international transactions. 20. We further find that

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

carried out in cash are duly reported and made available under the lens of the Income Tax Department. 10.5 At this juncture, we may reckon that terms of Section 40A(3) r.w.s. 40A(3A) are not absolute. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded from the ambit of these provisions. Genuine and bona fide transactions

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

carried out in cash are duly reported and made available under the lens of the Income Tax Department. 10.5 At this juncture, we may reckon that terms of Section 40A(3) r.w.s. 40A(3A) are not absolute. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded from the ambit of these provisions. Genuine and bona fide transactions

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

carried out in cash are duly reported and made available under the lens of the Income Tax Department. 10.5 At this juncture, we may reckon that terms of Section 40A(3) r.w.s. 40A(3A) are not absolute. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded from the ambit of these provisions. Genuine and bona fide transactions

MOHAMMED ANIS GULAM MOHAMMED MEMON,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(7), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.227/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Mohammed Anis Gulam Mohammed Vs. The Ito, Memon, Ward – 1(3)(7), 48, Memon Nagar Society, Nr. Surat Bharucha Apartment, Khandakuwa, Rander, Surat - 395005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aljpm3607K (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and finalization of your assessment u/s 144 of the Act.” 6. In response to the said notice, the assessee vide his reply dated, 25.09.2017, submitted before Assessing Officer, which is reproduced as follows: ITA.227/SRT/2019/AY.2015-16 Mohammed Anis Gulam Mohammed Momon “In response to the above noted notice I had a good fortune to see your good

MUKESH KEDIA HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

carrying out any business activities. The assessee was found to be one of the beneficiaries, who had obtained accommodation entries amounting to ₹79 lakhs in the form of fictitious loans from Jignesh Shah during the year under consideration. Thereafter, after obtaining necessary statutory approvals, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated on the assessee. The assessment was completed

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)

Penalty notice u/s. 271(l)(b) was also issued on 08.09.2017. The assessee with other persons have transferred two non- agricultural land to Shanti Integrated Textile Park Pvt. Ltd. and Assessee’s share was Rs.2.28,72,600. The assessee has not offered any capital gain or business income on sale of above land. The assessee vide letter dated 22nd December

MRS. DIXABEN JAYESHBHAI PATEL,VAPI vs. ITO, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.228 & 229/Srt/2020 Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Dixaben Jayeshbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2, Plot No.42, Krishna Colony, Vapi. Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat – 396191. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahspp3273F (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

loss account which come from RD purchases and URD purchases. Thus, that is genus transition for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. 228 & 229/SRT/2020/AY.2011-12 & 2012-13 Daxaben Jayeshbhai Patel Ans.3: I am show all the original voucher more than Rs.5000/- paid in cash URD purchases for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. Please verify with our books. Sample copy of above vouchers

MRS. DAXABEN JAYESHBHAIPATEL,VAPI vs. ITO, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.228 & 229/Srt/2020 Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Dixaben Jayeshbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2, Plot No.42, Krishna Colony, Vapi. Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat – 396191. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahspp3273F (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

loss account which come from RD purchases and URD purchases. Thus, that is genus transition for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. 228 & 229/SRT/2020/AY.2011-12 & 2012-13 Daxaben Jayeshbhai Patel Ans.3: I am show all the original voucher more than Rs.5000/- paid in cash URD purchases for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. Please verify with our books. Sample copy of above vouchers

SHRI NEHRUNAGAR CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(5), SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.507/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Loss account, the assessee has also claimed depreciation of Rs.7,26,434/-, and it is proved that the society is not working on mutuality and engaged in business. However, actually the assessee is not doing any business, therefore, the depreciation claimed by the assessee is also not allowable to it. Further, the assessee has not incurred any expenses to earn