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

68 of the Act, therefore the question of applicability of section 115BBE of the Act, does not arise, hence we allow ground No.6 raised by the assessee. 32. In the result, assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, is partly allowed in above terms. 33. Now we shall take Summarised and concise Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

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

68 of the Act, therefore the question of applicability of section 115BBE of the Act, does not arise, hence we allow ground No.6 raised by the assessee. 32. In the result, assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, is partly allowed in above terms. 33. Now we shall take Summarised and concise Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

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

68 of the Act, therefore the question of applicability of section 115BBE of the Act, does not arise, hence we allow ground No.6 raised by the assessee. 32. In the result, assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, is partly allowed in above terms. 33. Now we shall take Summarised and concise Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

RUCHIT DINESHBHAI DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 68, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act would not follow as a natural corollary when

CHIRAGBHAI S. GADHIYA,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the assessing officer has erred in rejecting books of account of the assessee. 3. It is therefore, prayed that above penalty levied by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter

CHIMANBHAI A. KANTESARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Income Tax Officer A-54, Trikam Nagar Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Aaykar Vs Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, 395006 Surat-395001 Pan : Abepp 7380 D Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) while passing the assessment order

ASHVIN NARAYAN BAJORIA HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

68,390/- on 08.04.2019. The assessee in his return of income offered additional income of Rs.29,67,398/- on account of income earned on transfer of shares of ‘Twenty First Century’. The Assessing Officer after serving statutory notices under section 143(2) r.w.s. 142(1) proceeded for assessment. The 2 Ashvin Narayan Bajoria (HUF) Assessing Officer while passing assessment order

SARITABEN RAHUL KAKADIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.553/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Saritaben Rahul Kakadia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(2)(3), S.R. Textiles, 59, Vishnu Nagar, Surat. Near Ankur Char Rasta, Varachha, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Clnpk0716K (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2022 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 Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A) Surat-3/10420/2016-17 Dated 22.10.2019, Which In Turn Arise Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

68 of the Act, namely identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, therefore penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer should be upheld. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The ground raised by the assessee pertains to levying of penalty to the tune of Rs.4,81,890/-, under section

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C and section 69D from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. This amendment being prospective and not retrospective and since the claim raised by the assessee is for the A.Y. 2009-10, therefore, this amendment is not applicable and thus the claim for set off of shares business loss is available to the assessee

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C and section 69D from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. This amendment being prospective and not retrospective and since the claim raised by the assessee is for the A.Y. 2009-10, therefore, this amendment is not applicable and thus the claim for set off of shares business loss is available to the assessee

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C and section 69D from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. This amendment being prospective and not retrospective and since the claim raised by the assessee is for the A.Y. 2009-10, therefore, this amendment is not applicable and thus the claim for set off of shares business loss is available to the assessee

ALPESH UMESHCHANDRA,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-1(2) (1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 68 of the Act. The PCIT observed that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and initiated

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

68,770/- and claimed deduction of Rs.1.13 crores under section 80IA. The assessee filed objection against the reopening. The objection of assessee was rejected vide order dated 31.12.2012. The Assessing Officer after rejecting the objection of assessee proceeded for re-assessment. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order restricted the eligible profit to the extent of Rs.76

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

68,770/- and claimed deduction of Rs.1.13 crores under section 80IA. The assessee filed objection against the reopening. The objection of assessee was rejected vide order dated 31.12.2012. The Assessing Officer after rejecting the objection of assessee proceeded for re-assessment. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order restricted the eligible profit to the extent of Rs.76

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

68,770/- and claimed deduction of Rs.1.13 crores under section 80IA. The assessee filed objection against the reopening. The objection of assessee was rejected vide order dated 31.12.2012. The Assessing Officer after rejecting the objection of assessee proceeded for re-assessment. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order restricted the eligible profit to the extent of Rs.76

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)

section 68 of the I.T. Act. 2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to confirm assessing officer’s addition of Rs.98,037/- u/s 69 of the Act without there being any ITA No.73/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar proof of payment of commission @ 2% of LTCG made by the assessee as per para 15 of assessment order

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

penalty under section 271D of the Act,  Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3),  Validity of declaration made under IDS. 4. The ld. PCIT recorded that the assessee was given opportunity of hearing on 12.03.2021 and 18.03.2021, however, the assessee neither attended the hearing nor filed written submission in respect of proposed revisions proceedings under section

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

penalty under section 271D of the Act,  Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3),  Validity of declaration made under IDS. 4. The ld. PCIT recorded that the assessee was given opportunity of hearing on 12.03.2021 and 18.03.2021, however, the assessee neither attended the hearing nor filed written submission in respect of proposed revisions proceedings under section