DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

exemption under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') 3.1 The Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount. The entire transaction was treated as bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding Rs. 2,10,474/- under section 68

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

exemption under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') 3.1 The Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount. The entire transaction was treated as bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding Rs. 2,10,474/- under section 68

JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

exemption under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') 3.1 The Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount. The entire transaction was treated as bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding Rs. 2,10,474/- under section 68

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

exemption under section 10(38) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act')\n3.1 The Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount. The entire\ntransaction was treated as bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding\nRs. 2,10,474/- under section 68

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

68. Ground No. [iii] relates to deleting the addition of Rs.71,29,433/- on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 69. Brief facts for adjudication of this ground of appeal are that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to assessee for disallowance for expenditure incurred for earning exempt

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), 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.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

exemption under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') 3.1 The Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount. The entire transaction was treated as bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding Rs. 2,10,474/- under section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT vs. M/S.BALAR NAVADIY MFG.CO.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.349/Srt/2017 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- M/S Balar Navadiy Mfg. 3(3)(1), Room No.418, 4Th Co., Balar Building, Opp. Vs Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Panchratna Tower, Lambe Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Hanuman Road, Surat-395006 Pan : Aaffb 3054 J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

exemption is claimed is new plant and 12 M/s Balar Navadiy Mfg.Co. machinery. The assessee failed to furnish the requisite details. Thus, disallowance under section 10B for Rs.1.74 crores is not sustainable by taking view that Assessing Officer has not been able to point out any specific default in fulfilling the condition laid down under section

ACIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Asst. Commissioner Of The Surat District Cricket Income-Tax (Exemptions), Association, Lalbhai Vs Circle-2, 6Th Floor, Room Contractor Stadium, Surat No.607, Aayakar Bhavan Dumas Road, Vesu, (Vejalpur), Prahlad Nagar Surat-395007 Road, Nr. Sachin Tower, Pan : Aaatt 6114 A Satellite,Ahmedabad-380 015 Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

exemption under section 11 and 12. On the above observation the case of assessee was re- opened. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued on 23.03.2016. The assessee filed its reply dated14.04.2016 and contended that the return filed on 23.06.2009 be treated as return in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer after serving

BHARGAV BHARATBHAI PANDYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhargav Bharatbhai Pandya, I.T.O., 61, Shubham Row House, Near Ward-2(1)(3), Vs. Sarasswati School, Honey Park Surat. Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Bcwpp 1537 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

exemption limit for filing return of income. The submission of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and proposed the addition under section 68

STATE BANK OF INDIA,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.37 & 38/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtualcourt Hearing) State Bank Of India Income Tax Officer (Tds-3) Room No.607, Aaykar Regional Business Office-V, Navsari- Vs. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Tapi, 1St Floor, Shourya Apartment, 395001 Opp. Lunsikul Ground, Navsari- 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacs 8577 K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

exemption under section 10(5) to the extent of expenses incurred for travel in India where the employee's designated place is in India and he actually visits the place as designated even in cases where the journey undertaken by an employee involves a foreign leg. 8.Without prejudice to the above, the learned ITO TDS-3 erred in applying

DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. QUANT CAPITAL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., M/S Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vapi Circle, 612-617, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3142 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., M/S Quant Capital Private Limited Vapi Circle, 612-617, Makers Chambers Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3159 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 68 of the Act is justified. The assessee also stated that the addition cannot be made merely on the assumption and presumption on suspicion basis. 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the contents of assessment order and the detailed written submissions, noted that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order held that the assessee did not file

DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE , VAPI vs. M/S. QCAP SECURITIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., M/S Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vapi Circle, 612-617, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3142 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., M/S Quant Capital Private Limited Vapi Circle, 612-617, Makers Chambers Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3159 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 68 of the Act is justified. The assessee also stated that the addition cannot be made merely on the assumption and presumption on suspicion basis. 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the contents of assessment order and the detailed written submissions, noted that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order held that the assessee did not file

SHRI RAM EDUCATION & GRAMINVIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTION WARD), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainishri Ram Education & I.T.O., (Exemption Ward) Graminvikas Charitable Trust, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jauagauri Park, Hathikhana, Majura Gate, Dharampur, Surat. Valsad-396050. Pan No. Aalts 324 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further noted that no details of donors were furnished by the assessee for the corpus funds. To avail the benefits of Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Act, all conditions, as mentioned in Section 12A must be fulfilled including of getting registration under Section 12AA of the Act. Accordingly

SHRI SABBIRBHAI DAWOODBHAI SHAIKH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Sabbirbhai Dawoodbhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shaikh, 3(1)(4), Anavil Business Vs 7/4539, Galemandi, Centre, Adajan, Surat- Lakkad Kot, 395009 Surat Pan : Aeqps 5688 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 139(1). Due date for filing of return of income for assessment year 2011-12 was 31.07.2010. Accordingly, the claim of exemption to the extent of Rs.14,94,166/- was disallowed and the same was added to the income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the reopening as well as in making addition in the assessment, the assessee filed

RAMESHKUMAR KARSANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(5), SURAT

Accordingly the estimated addition made of Rs.35,166/-[0.5% of 70,33,182/-] by the AC invoking provision of section 69C of the I.T Act stand deleted. Thus this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 68 Held, yes Assessee made investments in shares of company, 'S' During relevant assessment year, assessee sold said shares and claimed exemption

AALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.94/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Plot No.168, Udhyog Nagar Road, Udhna, Surat -394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8469M (Assessee) (Respondent)

68,92,427/- (being 44 per cent of total profit of the firm), which was claimed and allowed as exempted income u/s 10(2A) of the Act. Further, assessee have not received any interest on its investment in the firm (investment as on 01.04.2013 of Rs.96,58,97,818/- and as on 31.03.2014 of Rs.115,42,90,245/-). As such

KRUNALBHAI ASHOKBHAI GANDHI,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

section 68 or for that matter\nsection 69A. This aspect has been deliberated upon by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions. Relevant\nportion from following case laws are extracted below:\ni. Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49: 1TR 112 (S\n\"It seems to us that the correct approach to questions of this\nkind is this. If there

SHRI CHANDUBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI BORAD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chandubhai Parshottambhai Income Tax Officer, Borad, 162, 163, Akshardham Ward-3(3)(5), Surat, Vs Society, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Varachha Road, Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No: Ajfpb 2959 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 68. On the addition of agricultural income, Ld. CIT(A) held that assessee could not produce sufficient documentary evidence before Assessing Officer in support of higher agricultural income for current year, it was held that it is highly probable that assessee has concocted the agricultural income to claim excess exempt