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

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 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 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, 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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL PUKHRAJ JAIN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.89/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Anil Pukhraj Jain, Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206-2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent)/ "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q ""या"ेप सं Cross Objection No.10/Srt/2021 (A/O Ita No.89/Srt/2017) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) Anil Pukhraj Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206- 2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Vs. Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. Appellant/Co-Objector (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2023

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. During the assessment stage assessee did not file return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act but he filed reply in the course of assessment proceedings stating to treat original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, as the return of income field

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

income of earlier years or the current year against the undisclosed\nincome/investment. We have decided this issue holding that, in principles, the\nappellant is liable to get the benefit of set off of undisclosed income of earlier\nyears. However, there are no investment or expenditure in this year and hence,\nthe ground is dismissed.\n58.\nIn the result, assessee

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

undisclosed investment on purchase of\nvarious lands. The Assessing Officer has not examined the seller of land. There is no\nfinding of Assessing Officer whether the consideration paid by assessee was not in\naccordance with Jantri rate or less than the value determined by the Stamp Valuation\nAuthority. It is settled law that no addition on estimation basis

VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD,SURAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.,-1(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessee stated that as no material was found at the premises of M/s. Param Properties which belonged to the assessee and therefore, notice issued u/s. 153C of the Act was bad in law. The assessee cited several case laws in support of this contention. 5.2 The contention of the assessee and facts

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.,2, SURAT vs. VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessee stated that as no material was found at the premises of M/s. Param Properties which belonged to the assessee and therefore, notice issued u/s. 153C of the Act was bad in law. The assessee cited several case laws in support of this contention. 5.2 The contention of the assessee and facts

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

undisclosed income on the basis of assumptions, surmises and conjectures. 9. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in not directing the Id. AO to verify the evidences filed by the Appellant and allow appropriate relief to the Appellant. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming