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.

13. Similarly, under section 132A of the Act, the authorizing authority would acquire the jurisdiction to authorize an officer to requisition books of account or other documents or assets which have been taken into custody by an officer or authority under any law and thereafter to proceed to deal with the assets provided in the manner provided under sections

KIRTIPRADA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 is prospective and applicable only from assessment year 2013-14. With this background, now we shall proceed to examine in the assessee`s case under consideration, whether assessee has discharged his onus to prove, prima facie, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and share premium received by it from share subscribers companies

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

68 of the Act by relying upon the same books of account. Learned Counsel also argues that assessing officer has issued defective notice to levy penalty, that is, assessing officer did not specify any limb whether penalty is on ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment

SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

68 of the Act by relying upon the same books of account. Learned Counsel also argues that assessing officer has issued defective notice to levy penalty, that is, assessing officer did not specify any limb whether penalty is on ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

68, 69, 69B and 69C deem for the purpose of assessment was injected for the purpose of penalty by operation of a deemed provision. A proviso was added to new Explanation. It concerns cases where the assessee offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate. Consequentially, the provision is intended to save such amount from imposition of penalty

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

68,750/- and not Rs.51,37,500/-. Secondly, the assessee purchased NHAI Bonds of Rs.10 lakh and not Rs.5 lakh on sale of such property.The assessee stated that there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee and that notice under section 148 reliable to be quashed. The assessee made reference to Addl. CIT, Range

SAMIR S MEHTA,MAHARASHTRA vs. CIT (A)-4, 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.42/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Samir Shantilal Mehta, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, 1003, 10Th Floor, Sagardeep, South Surat. Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpm5453D (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Vartik Choksi & Biren Shah, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

1) Where the total income of an respondent assessee includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, ITA.42/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Samir Shantilal Mehta section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of — (a) the amount of income-tax calculated on income referred to in section

SHRI RAJENDRABHAI RAMANLAL DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

1) Where the total income of an respondent assessee includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of — (a) the amount of income-tax calculated on income referred to in section 68, section

ITO, WARD-2(3)(2), SURAT, SURAT vs. KISHOR BHANUBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the notice under section 148A(b) had been issued pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal dated 04.05.2022, which is admittedly after 31.03.2022. Therefore, on both counts, the notice issued under section 148A[b] of the Act for the Asst. year

RAJGREEN INFRALINK LLP,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(3), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.257 & 375/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rajgreen Infralink Llp Deputy Commissioner Of 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-1(3) Nr. Choksi Wadi, New Rander Road, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Rajgreen Infralink Llp Vs Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Room No. 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Nagar, Nr. Choksi Wadi, Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, New Rander Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395009 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

1) vide notice dated 16.02.2020, 04.01.2021 and 31.03.2021 were issued to the assessee. The assessee failed to submit proper reply with respect to issue raised by assessing officer. The assessee in its reply submitted that due to second wave of Covid-19 pandemic, the assessee could not collect the requisite contra- confirmation and sought short adjournment upto 17.04.2021. The Assessing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR - 1(3), SURAT vs. RAJGREEN INFRALINK LLP, SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.257 & 375/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rajgreen Infralink Llp Deputy Commissioner Of 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-1(3) Nr. Choksi Wadi, New Rander Road, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Rajgreen Infralink Llp Vs Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Room No. 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Nagar, Nr. Choksi Wadi, Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, New Rander Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395009 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

1) vide notice dated 16.02.2020, 04.01.2021 and 31.03.2021 were issued to the assessee. The assessee failed to submit proper reply with respect to issue raised by assessing officer. The assessee in its reply submitted that due to second wave of Covid-19 pandemic, the assessee could not collect the requisite contra- confirmation and sought short adjournment upto 17.04.2021. The Assessing

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. AASTHA ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

section 271(1)(c).” Relying on the said para the ld.CIT-DR inviting our attention to the 7. impugned order submitted that relief has been granted by the CIT(A) for the reasons set out in para 7 to 7.3 which is assailed by the Revenue. The relevant extract which is common in these group of cases is extracted

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. AASTHA ECO HOMES,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

section 271(1)(c).” Relying on the said para the ld.CIT-DR inviting our attention to the 7. impugned order submitted that relief has been granted by the CIT(A) for the reasons set out in para 7 to 7.3 which is assailed by the Revenue. The relevant extract which is common in these group of cases is extracted

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. AASTHA DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

section 271(1)(c).” Relying on the said para the ld.CIT-DR inviting our attention to the 7. impugned order submitted that relief has been granted by the CIT(A) for the reasons set out in para 7 to 7.3 which is assailed by the Revenue. The relevant extract which is common in these group of cases is extracted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. AASTHA CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

section 271(1)(c).” Relying on the said para the ld.CIT-DR inviting our attention to the 7. impugned order submitted that relief has been granted by the CIT(A) for the reasons set out in para 7 to 7.3 which is assailed by the Revenue. The relevant extract which is common in these group of cases is extracted

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. R K SHAH PROJECTS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.55/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S R.K.Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aditya Complex, Nr. Tax., Circle-2(1)(1), Room No.216, Vs. Kapadia Health Club, Bhatar Road, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 8584 Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

Section 68 is not confined to the issue of deposits or loan credit but encompasses of all such credits whose nature remains unexplained. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set ITA No.55/SRT/2020 A.Y. 13-14 M/s R.K. Shah Project Pvt. Ltd aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file

M/S. TIRUPATI ENERGY SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.573/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 M/S. Tirupati Energy Solution Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. , 1/B Ratnadham Ward- 2(1)(4) Surat Vinay Apartment , Ratnadham Sankhul Piplod Surat Pan: Aacct 7044 G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68 of the Act. Hence, addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT (A) may please be deleted. 4. Succinctly, facts as culled out from the orders of lower authorities are that the assessee company has filed its return of income on 11.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 39,600, which was processed under section 143(1

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHAH & DESAI CONSTRUCTION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

13 The explanation was not accepted, the AO levied penalty summing 5. up the points for arriving at his conclusion on which heavy reliance is laced by the Revenue. The relevant extract is reproduced hereunder : “Thus, the following points emerge as regards to the penalty proceedings : 1. The assessee has failed to give any justification or acceptable explanation against charge