THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. PANKAJ ENKA PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] dated 31.03.2015. 2. Grievances raised by the Revenue are as follows: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 1,80,00,000/.- on account

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 69C on account of commission paid @ 2% or 3% of bogus long term capital gain. In the assessee`s case AO added Rs.10426 (3% of Rs.3,47,564). Since, we have deleted the alleged addition of Rs.3,47,564/-, hence addition made by AO does not have leg to stand, therefore it is hereby deleted

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. GANDHI CAPITAL PVT.LTD.,, SURAT

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2922/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(2), Vs. M/S. Gandhi Capital Private Limited, Shop No. 5017, 5Th Floor, Jash Market, Ring Surat. Road, Sahara Darwaja, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg2903J (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Revenue By :Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [“The Ld. Cit(A)” In Short] In Appeal No. Cas-3/Tfrd-1/79/2015-16,Dated 24.08.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Assessing Officer) Under Section143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”], Dated 31.03.2015. 2. Grievances Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:

68,190/-, on 29.09.2012. The same was processed by accepting the returned income. Consequent to selection of the assessee`s case for scrutiny, statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, dated 12.08.2013 was issued to the assessee. A notice under 142(1) dated 03.07.2014 was issued calling for basic documents and details. In response

HARISHBHAI G. CHOVATIYA,SARTHANA, SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.486/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Harishbhai G Chovatiya Income Tax Officer, 18, Bapa Sitaram Row House, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat, Vs Kamrej Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Sarthana, Majura Gate, Surat- 394101 Surat-395001 Pan No: Agdpc 6539 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 68 thereby upheld the addition of Rs.38,61,083/-. Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue and have gone through the order of lower authorities carefully

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs.\n5,21,964/-.\n3.2 In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals), the issue was re-examined. According to the appellate authority the\nappellant assessee had furnished evidence to show that the shares were\nbrought as genuine investment which was long back

MAGNIFIQUE GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Magnifique Gems Private Limited Income Tax Officer, 105 Rajshree Building, Maniyara Ward-1(1)(4) Sheri Na Naka, Surat, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Income Tax Gujarat- 395003 Colony, Athwa, Surat, Gujarat- 395001 Pan No. Aagcm 5160 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-Dr

105 Rajshree Building, Maniyara Ward-1(1)(4) Sheri Na Naka, Surat, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Income Tax Gujarat- 395003 Colony, Athwa, Surat, Gujarat- 395001 PAN NO. AAGCM 5160 N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rasesh Shah, CA Revenue by : Mr. J.K. Chandani, Sr-DR Date of Hearing : 08/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 23/12/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal

ITEC MEASURES PRIVATE LIMITED,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1250/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Itec Measures Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Plot No.397-398, Silvassa Road, Ward - 3, Gidc, Gujarat - 396195 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp8921K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushbu Bagrecha, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 12.11.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “The Ld. AO has not considered various proof regarding source

OM SAI STONE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(4), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

105 (Delhi), decision of this Tribunal (SMC) in Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Vs ITO in ITA No. 628 and 629/Srt/2023 order dated 12/12/2023. 9. On the merit of addition, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that he has already accounted all the income in his return of income. The reopening was made from four years from

OM SAI STONE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(4), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

105 (Delhi), decision of this Tribunal (SMC) in Mukhtar Ramzan Shaikh Vs ITO in ITA No. 628 and 629/Srt/2023 order dated 12/12/2023. 9. On the merit of addition, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that he has already accounted all the income in his return of income. The reopening was made from four years from

ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI UMESH P BANSAL, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

105/- Poonamchand J. Bansali (AAVPB6081B) Shri Umeshkumar P. Bansal 9.1.2 From the remand report, it is clear that the Ld. AO has accepted the pleas of the assessees w.r.t bank accounts, at Sr. No 6, 7, 8. The findings of remand report is that bank a/c in sr. No. 6,7 & 8 do not belong to assesses as assessee

UMESHKUMAR P BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

105/- Poonamchand J. Bansali (AAVPB6081B) Shri Umeshkumar P. Bansal 9.1.2 From the remand report, it is clear that the Ld. AO has accepted the pleas of the assessees w.r.t bank accounts, at Sr. No 6, 7, 8. The findings of remand report is that bank a/c in sr. No. 6,7 & 8 do not belong to assesses as assessee

ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI UMESH P BANSAL, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

105/- Poonamchand J. Bansali (AAVPB6081B) Shri Umeshkumar P. Bansal 9.1.2 From the remand report, it is clear that the Ld. AO has accepted the pleas of the assessees w.r.t bank accounts, at Sr. No 6, 7, 8. The findings of remand report is that bank a/c in sr. No. 6,7 & 8 do not belong to assesses as assessee

UMESHKUMAR P BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

105/- Poonamchand J. Bansali (AAVPB6081B) Shri Umeshkumar P. Bansal 9.1.2 From the remand report, it is clear that the Ld. AO has accepted the pleas of the assessees w.r.t bank accounts, at Sr. No 6, 7, 8. The findings of remand report is that bank a/c in sr. No. 6,7 & 8 do not belong to assesses as assessee

MAHESH DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.527/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Mahesh Dyeing & Printing Mills Dy. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat, Vs 104, 105, 107 Shivanand Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Majura Ind. Estate, Village Tati Thaiya, Gate, Opp. New Civil Surat-394221 Hospital, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aabcm 9282 E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

105, 107 Shivanand Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Majura Ind. Estate, Village Tati Thaiya, Gate, Opp. New Civil Surat-394221 Hospital, Surat-395001 PAN No. AABCM 9282 E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar Sr-DR अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal instituted on 01.08.2023 सुनवाई

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

68 of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the addition. 9. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. " The "A" bench of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of lTO vs. Shaleen Khemani in l.T.A. No. I945/Kol/2014 dated 18.10.2017 at para 9.1. to 9.4 held as follows: 9.1 We further find that the transaction

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

68 of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the addition. 9. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. " The "A" bench of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of lTO vs. Shaleen Khemani in l.T.A. No. I945/Kol/2014 dated 18.10.2017 at para 9.1. to 9.4 held as follows: 9.1 We further find that the transaction

MAHESH DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.281/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Mahesh Dyeing & Printing Mills Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(1), 104, 105, 107 Shivanand Nagar Surat Ind. Estate, Village – Tati Thaiya, Surat – 394221, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcm9282E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

105, 107 Shivanand Nagar Surat Ind. Estate, Village – Tati Thaiya, Surat – 394221, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AABCM9282E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 11/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order

HARPALSINH FATESINH DEVDHARA,KOSAMBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Harpalsinh Fatehsinh Devdhara, Vs. The Ito, Hg-7, Diamond Plaza Zin Road Ward- 1, Tarsadi, Kosamba, Dist – Surat, Bardoli Surat – 394120. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bftpd9991J (Appellant) (Respondent)

105/- and accordingly as to why net profit of 8% of total turnover should not be determined your income for the year under consideration. Further, vide submission dated 07.11.2019, you have submitted month- wise cash sale and cash deposit in a tabular chart. On perusal of the same, opening cash on hand as on 01.04.2016 was shown of Rs.4

LATE SHRI BHIMSEN DARBARILAL ARORA,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, SURAT

In the result, ground no.4 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Through, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, L/H. Rajat Bhimsen Arora, Surat. Smt. Mamta Bhimsen Arora, A-201, Madhulika Apartment, Bhatar Road, Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acaps9230L

68 of the Act and hence, not justified. (5) Both the lower authorities have grievously erred in not properly appreciating the entire correspondences made in the course of assessment proceedings/appellate proceedings, already been supplied with the appeal memo forming part of the statement of facts including cogent explanations and submissions made in writing by the appellant on various dates along