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.

reassessing the total income under the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. Even in a case where undisclosed income

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.,2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

undisclosed, however it is very much related to assessee`s business, hence it should be taxable at the rate of 2.5% under the head business income and not under section 115BBE of the Act. 35. The source of income was explained and is apparently established and hence section 115BBE of the Act, is not applicable for such business receipts

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

undisclosed, however it is very much related to assessee`s business, hence it should be taxable at the rate of 2.5% under the head business income and not under section 115BBE of the Act. 35. The source of income was explained and is apparently established and hence section 115BBE of the Act, is not applicable for such business receipts

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

undisclosed, however it is very much related to assessee`s business, hence it should be taxable at the rate of 2.5% under the head business income and not under section 115BBE of the Act. 35. The source of income was explained and is apparently established and hence section 115BBE of the Act, is not applicable for such business receipts

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. M/S. DAGINA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., , SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

undisclosed, however it is very much related to assessee`s business, hence it should be taxable at the rate of 2.5% under the head business income and not under section 115BBE of the Act. 35. The source of income was explained and is apparently established and hence section 115BBE of the Act, is not applicable for such business receipts

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRA CIR.2, SURAT vs. DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

undisclosed, however it is very much related to assessee`s business, hence it should be taxable at the rate of 2.5% under the head business income and not under section 115BBE of the Act. 35. The source of income was explained and is apparently established and hence section 115BBE of the Act, is not applicable for such business receipts

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

undisclosed, however it is very much related to assessee`s business, hence it should be taxable at the rate of 2.5% under the head business income and not under section 115BBE of the Act. 35. The source of income was explained and is apparently established and hence section 115BBE of the Act, is not applicable for such business receipts

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

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

undisclosed, however it is very much related to assessee`s business, hence it should be taxable at the rate of 2.5% under the head business income and not under section 115BBE of the Act. 35. The source of income was explained and is apparently established and hence section 115BBE of the Act, is not applicable for such business receipts

M/S. DHARAM IMPEX,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.288 To 293/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck 2552 R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.306 To 311/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1579/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Maniprabha Impex Pvt.Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 6219 L अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.312 To 317/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1580/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Dharam Impex Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffd 2692 C अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent)

reassess provided that the assets/documents received by the AO represent or indicate any undisclosed income or possibility of any income

M/S. MANIPRABHA IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.288 To 293/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck 2552 R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.306 To 311/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1579/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Maniprabha Impex Pvt.Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 6219 L अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.312 To 317/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1580/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Dharam Impex Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffd 2692 C अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent)

reassess provided that the assets/documents received by the AO represent or indicate any undisclosed income or possibility of any income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

income tax return observed that the assessee has failed to reflect the said undisclosed stock/income of Rs. 3,91,81,368/-. The assessee gave the following reply along with filing profit and loss account for the period from 01.04.2015 to 18.07.2015: “Sir, during survey operation the Survey Team had found a total stock of Rs.4,22,11,880/- lying

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

income tax return observed that the assessee has failed to reflect the said undisclosed stock/income of Rs. 3,91,81,368/-. The assessee gave the following reply along with filing profit and loss account for the period from 01.04.2015 to 18.07.2015: “Sir, during survey operation the Survey Team had found a total stock of Rs.4,22,11,880/- lying

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

income tax return observed that the assessee has failed to reflect the said undisclosed stock/income of Rs. 3,91,81,368/-. The assessee gave the following reply along with filing profit and loss account for the period from 01.04.2015 to 18.07.2015: “Sir, during survey operation the Survey Team had found a total stock of Rs.4,22,11,880/- lying

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

income tax return observed that the assessee has failed to reflect the said undisclosed stock/income of Rs. 3,91,81,368/-. The assessee gave the following reply along with filing profit and loss account for the period from 01.04.2015 to 18.07.2015: “Sir, during survey operation the Survey Team had found a total stock of Rs.4,22,11,880/- lying

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

income tax return observed that the assessee has failed to reflect the said undisclosed stock/income of Rs. 3,91,81,368/-. The assessee gave the following reply along with filing profit and loss account for the period from 01.04.2015 to 18.07.2015: “Sir, during survey operation the Survey Team had found a total stock of Rs.4,22,11,880/- lying

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

income tax return observed that the assessee has failed to reflect the said undisclosed stock/income of Rs. 3,91,81,368/-. The assessee gave the following reply along with filing profit and loss account for the period from 01.04.2015 to 18.07.2015: “Sir, during survey operation the Survey Team had found a total stock of Rs.4,22,11,880/- lying

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. M/S. D P VEKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 172/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-3(3), Vs. M/S. D. P. Vekariya, Surat Skylark Shopping, B/H Kapodara Police Station, Varachha Road, Surat, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfd 8442 Q (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr 02/06/2022 Date Of Hearing 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

undisclosed work in progress and added to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made addition on account of short accounted of contract income and interest income to the tune of Rs.22,71,231/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT

income on\n31.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 32,47,260/-. Subsequently, a search\nand seizure action was conducted u/s. 132 of the Act in case of Kuberji Group\non 06.02.2020. The residential premises of Shri Naresh Bisheshwarlal Agrawal\n(assessee herein) was also covered during the search and seizure operation.\nVarious incriminating documents were found and seized, which indicated