THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-6,, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

iii) of the Act of Rs.4,02,379/-.” 14. Further vide application dated 03.08.2021the assessee has raised the following additional ground:- “1. That on facts and in law, and in the alternate and without prejudice, deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act ought to be granted to the appellant.” 15. Brief

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

iii) of the Act of Rs.4,02,379/-.” 14. Further vide application dated 03.08.2021the assessee has raised the following additional ground:- “1. That on facts and in law, and in the alternate and without prejudice, deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act ought to be granted to the appellant.” 15. Brief

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

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

iii) of the Act of Rs.4,02,379/-.” 14. Further vide application dated 03.08.2021the assessee has raised the following additional ground:- “1. That on facts and in law, and in the alternate and without prejudice, deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act ought to be granted to the appellant.” 15. Brief

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI MUKESH MAHAVIR PRASAD SEN , SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.106/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, Ward-2(3(8), Surat. 6/1862-63, 3Rd Floor, Office S. No.305, Ghanshyam Bhuvan, Bal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bcsps 0173 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.107/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Atul Kailashchandra Mehta, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. S. 7/2496, Office No.2, Shastru Chambers, Maznine Floor, Chandulal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alxpm 7834 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya - Ca Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

iii) On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the concerns like M/s Mihir Diamonds, M/s. Krishna Dial and M/s Karishma Diamonds Pvt Ltd from which the assessee made the said purchases amounting to Rs. 3,99,61,340/-, were non-existent entities and they

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. SHRI ATUL KAILASHCHANDRA MEHTA, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.106/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Mukesh Mahavirprasad Sen, Ward-2(3(8), Surat. 6/1862-63, 3Rd Floor, Office S. No.305, Ghanshyam Bhuvan, Bal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bcsps 0173 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.107/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Income Tax Officer, V Shri Atul Kailashchandra Mehta, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. S. 7/2496, Office No.2, Shastru Chambers, Maznine Floor, Chandulal Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alxpm 7834 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya - Ca Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

iii) On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the concerns like M/s Mihir Diamonds, M/s. Krishna Dial and M/s Karishma Diamonds Pvt Ltd from which the assessee made the said purchases amounting to Rs. 3,99,61,340/-, were non-existent entities and they

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

14. Another submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that there was no proper application of mind by authority granting approval/sanction. Section 151 of the Act of 1961 deals with sanction for issue of notice. Sub-section (2) of section 151 requires that the authority granting sanction/approval must be satisfied on the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer that

SHRIFAL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

14. Another submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that there was no proper application of mind by authority granting approval/sanction. Section 151 of the Act of 1961 deals with sanction for issue of notice. Sub-section (2) of section 151 requires that the authority granting sanction/approval must be satisfied on the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer that

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

14. Another submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that there was no proper application of mind by authority granting approval/sanction. Section 151 of the Act of 1961 deals with sanction for issue of notice. Sub-section (2) of section 151 requires that the authority granting sanction/approval must be satisfied on the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer that

RAIYANI BROTHERS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.222-224/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08,2008-09 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Raiyani Brothers The Income Tax Officer, V 9, Dumaswala Compound, Ward-3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Haribaug, Varachha Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Assessee) (Revenue)

III, Surat [here-in- after referred to as Ld CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in partly upholding the addition of Rs.20,97,294/- made by the AO in respect of being 12.5% of total unverifiable purchase on estimated basis. (ii) That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified

RAIYANI BROTHERS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.222-224/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08,2008-09 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Raiyani Brothers The Income Tax Officer, V 9, Dumaswala Compound, Ward-3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Haribaug, Varachha Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Assessee) (Revenue)

III, Surat [here-in- after referred to as Ld CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in partly upholding the addition of Rs.20,97,294/- made by the AO in respect of being 12.5% of total unverifiable purchase on estimated basis. (ii) That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified

RAIYANI BROTHERS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.222-224/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08,2008-09 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Raiyani Brothers The Income Tax Officer, V 9, Dumaswala Compound, Ward-3(3)(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Haribaug, Varachha Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Assessee) (Revenue)

III, Surat [here-in- after referred to as Ld CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in partly upholding the addition of Rs.20,97,294/- made by the AO in respect of being 12.5% of total unverifiable purchase on estimated basis. (ii) That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified

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

NA vs. ARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN,NAVSARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.272/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, V The Income Tax Officer, Agiary Street, Malesar, Navsari S Exemption Ward, Surat. Taluka, Navsari – 396 445. . [Pan: Aaatn 6124 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri H.R.Vepari – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Vaishav – Cit - Dr

III) Disallowance of exemption u/s.11(1)(d) of the Act: ON the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the CIT(A) was not justified in not granting exemption u/s.11(1)(d) of the Act in respect of voluntary contributions received as forming part of corpus trust or received for specific purposes. (V) Miscellaneous: The appellant craves

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7),, SURAT vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR PUKHRAJ RANKA,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.291/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Jitendra Pukhraj Ranka, Surat. Prop Of M/S P Jitendra & Co., 304/A, Sumangal Appt., Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpj0571F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-I/11694/2018-19 Dated 27.03.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 23.03.2016. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Quashing Reopened Assessment Proceedings For Ay 2008-09. (Ii) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate Decision Of Larger Bench Of Hon'Ble Gujarat High Court In The Case Of A.L.A Firm Vs Cit, 189 (1991) Itr 285, Whereas The Hon'Ble High Court Has Held That The Jurisdiction Of The Ito To Reassess Income Arises If He Has Reassessed Based On Specific & Relevant Information Coming Into His

iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is substantiate by the statement on oath given by the entry provider. (iv) On the facts and circumstances

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

iii)Assessing Officer’s order is in violation of the principle of natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; then the order ITA.49 &50/SRT/2021 (AY.10-11 & 11-12) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd. passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

iii)Assessing Officer’s order is in violation of the principle of natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; then the order ITA.49 &50/SRT/2021 (AY.10-11 & 11-12) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd. passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed

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.

section 153A of the Act seeks to assessee the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years. The second proviso makes the intention of the legislature clear

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.

section 153A of the Act seeks to assessee the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years. The second proviso makes the intention of the legislature clear