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

u/s 263 by invoking provisions of Section 68 by ignoring the fact that the proviso to Section 68 was introduced by Finance Act, 2012 with prospective effect from April 01, 2012. Hence, revising

RANJANBEN AJITENDRA PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

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

u/s 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, in any event, in response to the notice under section 263, the appellant had made detailed submissions on the issue that had been taken up in the notice under section 263

M/S DAYARAM BRIJBHUKHANDAS,NA vs. ARIVS.OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

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

u/s 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, in any event, in response to the notice under section 263, the appellant had made detailed submissions on the issue that had been taken up in the notice under section 263

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

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

u/s 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, in any event, in response to the notice under section 263, the appellant had made detailed submissions on the issue that had been taken up in the notice under section 263

HARMONY YARNS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Harmony Yarns Private Vs. The Pcit-1, Limited, Surat Plot-65, 1St Floor Subhash Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Nr. Ram Chowk, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach5895F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

68 of the Act and to be added to the total income of the assessee, for the year under consideration, which the assessing officer has failed to do. 4. It was also noticed by ld. PCIT from the Form 3CB-Col. 20(b) that the PF contribution received from employees of Rs.14,796/-, for which due date for payment

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

u/s. 263 may please be quashed or modified as your honours deem it proper. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, later or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee is engaged in the business of construction

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

u/s. 263 may please be quashed or modified as your honours deem it proper. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, later or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee is engaged in the business of construction

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)

revised is subject to appeal and confirmed by CIT(A). 4.It is therefore prayed that above order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 may please be quashed or modified as your honours deem it proper. Assessment Years.2014-15 5.Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal

K. N. DIAMOND,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

u/s 263 passed by the Pr.CIT is bad in fact and law of the case and requires to be cancelled. ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd 11. The above Grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to and are independent of each other.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm

LABDHI JEWELLERD PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

u/s 263 passed by the Pr.CIT is bad in fact and law of the case and requires to be cancelled. ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd 11. The above Grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to and are independent of each other.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

u/s. 263 may please be quashed or modified as your honours deem it proper. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee is engaged in the business of construction

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

u/s. 263 may please be quashed or modified as your honours deem it proper. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee is engaged in the business of construction

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

u/s. 263 may please be quashed or modified as your honours deem it proper. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee is engaged in the business of construction

SUPREME AUTO,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1141/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Bilimora Road, National Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari - 396521. [Pan: Aamfs 3499 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 22.10.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 22.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

68 of the Act. With regard to booking 4 Supreme Auto vs. Pr. CIT- Valsad /I.T.A.No.1141/AHD/2016/A.Y. 2011-12 advances, the assessee has given complete details and income of advance has been duly reflected in next year and only advance of Rs.8,97,889/- were returned to the customer against cancellation of booking. Further, explanation was called for which was replied

BHARATKUMAR RANCHODBHAI SONI,NA vs. ARIVS.PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, which he failed to do. He held that the order passed u/s 143(3)\non 30.12.2019 by the AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of\nrevenue u/s 263 of the Act. He directed AO (i) to conduct proper and meaningful\ninquiry about the source of cash deposit of Rs.49

SAMIR YOGENDRABHAI PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 263 passed by the Pr.CIT is bad in fact and law of the case and requires to be cancelled. 11. The above grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to and are independent of each other. 2 Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh Vs. Pr.CIT 12. Your Appellant craves, leave to amend, alter, delete and/or add to foregoing grounds of appeal any time

NYA INTERNATIONAL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 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.57/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Nya International, Vs. The Pcit-1, Unit No.360, Plot No.239, Sez, Gidc Surat. Sachin, Suarat – 394230. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. (iii) Argument No.-3 of assessee: The Firm argued that the AO has also given the reference of credit entries of Rs.70,13,43,319/- in ING Vysya Bank at Para No.4.2 of the Assessment Order. So, there is complete application of mind. Observation of ld PCIT: In para 4.2 of the Assessment

7 STAR DREAMS,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 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.95/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) 7 Star Dreams, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Block No.26, F.P. No.26, T.P.S. No. 66, Nr. Sweet Home Kosad, Surat – 394107. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfz2575L

revision order under section 263 of the Act. Therefore, it is not a case of lack of inquiry. However, we note that the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act, has been thoroughly examined by the Assessing Officer and took a plausible view, therefore to that extent the order of the AO should