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.

131 of this Act, or a notice under subjection (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income- tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

131(1)(d) of the Act to the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and these investor companies were found to be bogus and nom traceable. The AO on the analysis of the bank account found that these investor companies were not carrying out any actual business activity. Hence, the AO held that the amount of investment of Rs.1

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

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

68 on account of loan and advance given to Rameshwaram Developers. During assessment proceedings, various notices issued under section 142(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

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

68 on account of loan and advance given to Rameshwaram Developers. During assessment proceedings, various notices issued under section 142(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

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

131(1) for recording statement on oath is invalid and illegal on the basis of various decisions cited earlier. 35. The ld. AR for assessee further submits that Assessing Officer relied upon the entry in the impugned diary in respect of property at A-306 and B-102 which pertains to a different project than the project of assessee

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

131(1) for recording statement on oath is invalid and illegal on the basis of various decisions cited earlier. 35. The ld. AR for assessee further submits that Assessing Officer relied upon the entry in the impugned diary in respect of property at A-306 and B-102 which pertains to a different project than the project of assessee

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

131(1) for recording statement on oath is invalid and illegal on the basis of various decisions cited earlier. 35. The ld. AR for assessee further submits that Assessing Officer relied upon the entry in the impugned diary in respect of property at A-306 and B-102 which pertains to a different project than the project of assessee

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

section 68, namely, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and share premium received by it from share subscribers companies. 13. We note that ld CIT(A) in his appellate order has discussed each share applicant company. The various inquiries conducted by the AO in regard to these three investor companies and the assessee’s submission

SEJAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act to prove the genuineness of cash credits received by the assessee. Before us the assessee-company has submitted in respect of each share applicants, the following details and documents to prove the Identity, Creditworthiness and Genuineness of Transactions, which are given below: (1) In respect of M/s Momentum Real Estate Pvt Ltd, the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. VALENCIA CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) A.C.I.T. M/S Valencia Corporation, Central Circle-4, S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu-Rundh Vs. Surat. Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant Respondednt C.O. No. 17/Srt/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 257/Srt/2022)(Ay: 2016-17) M/S Valencia Corporation, A.C.I.T. S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu- Central Circle-4, Vs. Rundh Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Surat. Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant/Objector Respondednt

131 of the Act was issued to Konark Infratech. The Assessing Officer without having any evidence in his ACIT Vs M/s Valencia Corporation. possession, treated the liability as ceased to exist without appreciating the condition precedent for invoking Section 41(1) of the Act. We find that coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in ITO Vs Shri Thadaram Khaldas Tolani

VISHWAS BUILDERS,OPERA PALACE vs. ACIT, CIR 2(2), SURAT, MAJURAGATE, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vishwas Builders, Acit, Cir 2(2), Laskana Kholvad Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Gujarat-395004. Vs. Majuragate, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aakfv 9174 A Appellant Respondent

1,30,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits is sustainable. deposits is sustainable. 5.1 The Assessing Officer observed deposit of the cash of The Assessing Officer

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

section 131 (1)(d) of the Act to conduct enquiries in case of the lenders based at Ranchi. The said officers have sent the enquiry reports, which are framing part of assessment order. The findings of the AO as per chart is as under: S. Name of the Alleged Findings of enquiry N. Lenders Loan(includi ng interest

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:

1,99,99,500 Metals P Talao Main Ltd Road, Ankur Apart SRT Assessment Year. 2012-13 Gandhi Capital Pvt. Ltd. Anushka 105 Sagar 284000 10 660 28,40,000 18,74,40,000 19,02,80,000 Sort Tel P Shopping Centre Ltd Andheri (W) RM 51 5th floor, Sunny

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under