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

Section 68 was introduced by Finance Act, 2012 with prospective effect from April 01, 2012. Hence, revising order is bad in law.Therefore, it is prayed that the order of revision may kindly be quashed. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, change or modify any or all grounds of appeal before or at the time

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

133A(6), the recourse to provisions of section Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) 131(1) of the Act can be held only one person concerned refuses to have his statement recorded or does not cooperate in recording his statement during the survey. There is no such reference recorded by survey team. Therefore, recourse to section

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

133A(6), the recourse to provisions of section Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) 131(1) of the Act can be held only one person concerned refuses to have his statement recorded or does not cooperate in recording his statement during the survey. There is no such reference recorded by survey team. Therefore, recourse to section

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

133A(6), the recourse to provisions of section Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) 131(1) of the Act can be held only one person concerned refuses to have his statement recorded or does not cooperate in recording his statement during the survey. There is no such reference recorded by survey team. Therefore, recourse to section

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

SHREE M.D. INDUSTRIES (NOW KNOWN AS M/S. PARAMESHWAR WEAVES),,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, OSD-4, RANGE-2,, SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shreem.D. Industries Income Tax Officer (Now Know As Osd-4, Vs M/S Parameshwar Weaves) Range-2, Surat D-137, Uma Industrial Estate, Udhna Udhyognagar, Surat Pan : Aapfs 9634 K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

68 against unsecured loan and ground No.5 relates to lump sum disallowance of Rs.1.00 lakh of various expenses. The Ld. 3 Shree M.D.Industries (now know M/s Parameshwar Weaves) AR for the assessee further submits that at this stage he is not pressing substantial ground No.5 due to smallness of amount and that the case is very old. Considering the submission

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

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Shhlok Enterprise, Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat Block No.292, Plot No.135/B, Shhlok Arcede, Bamroli Road, Surat. Pan : Abufs8091E Appellant Respondednt

68 and Ground No. 5 relates to consequential disallowance of interest expenses. The learned DR for the revenue submits that a survey was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 30th August 2013. During the survey action statement of one of the partner was recorded oath. The partner of assessee admitted to have received accommodation entry in the form

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S SURAT LIFE CARE PVT. LTD., SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S. Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3, Unique Hospital, Opp. Kiran Motor, Surat Nr. Sosyo Circle Lane, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarcs8396M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By 14/12/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

133A of the Act on 04.03.2014 of Rs.1,95,00,000/- and should be taxed u/s 160/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 M/s Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd. 115BBE of the Act. It was also reminded to the assessee that the benefit of section 139(5) of the Act cannot be claimed by a person who has filed fraudulent returns. The Revision is allowed

SAI PETROLEUM,SURAT vs. PR.CIT, -1, SURAT

In the result, grounds no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.116/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sai Petroleum Principal Commissioner Of 381, Survey No.415, Sachin, Income-Tax-1, Rom 123, Vs Surat-394230 Aayakhar Bhawan, Majura Pan No: Achfs 8318 Q Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ketan S. Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 15.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Ads Made By Ld. Ao As Per Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. Sai Petroleum I. Addition U/S 68 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act Amounting To Rs.13,65,241 As Unreconciled Cash Deposited In Bank Accounted As Cash Sales During Demonetization Period. Ii. Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.10,00,000 Received From Debtors As Unaccounted Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period.

section 133A of the Act on the office premises of assessee on 21.03.2017. During survey action, cash transaction during demonetization period was verified. It was noted during the survey that assessee made cash sales of Rs.2.82 crores whereas cash of Rs.3.11 crores Specified Bank Note (SBN for short) of Rs.500/- and Rs. 1,000/- were deposited from

KISHORKUMAR DHIRAJLAL KATHROTIYA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, , SURAT

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

5 to 8 are general and consequential to the\nother grounds, which does not require separate adjudication and\nhence dismissed.\n36. In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.\n125/SRT/2023 is dismissed.\nOrder pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 08-09-2025\nSd/-\n(BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH)\nACCOUNΤΑΝΤ ΜΕMBER\nAhmedabad :\nDated 08/09/2025

SMT. MUKTABEN NISHANTBHAI PATEL,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

5 Taxman 308 (Delhi), CIT v. Karamchand Premchand (P.) Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254 (Guj.) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499/[1984] 19 Taxman 278 (Guj.) (FB). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider

SHRI NISHANT KANTILAL PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

5 Taxman 308 (Delhi), CIT v. Karamchand Premchand (P.) Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254 (Guj.) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499/[1984] 19 Taxman 278 (Guj.) (FB). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider

SHRI NISHANT KANTILAL PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

5 Taxman 308 (Delhi), CIT v. Karamchand Premchand (P.) Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 254 (Guj.) and CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499/[1984] 19 Taxman 278 (Guj.) (FB). Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider

TRIVIDH CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.86/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Trividh Corporation, Vs. The Pcit, Surat. Tp No.25, Fp No.103, Aashtha Medicare & Residency, Abrama Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahft0894N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. T. Bidari, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Grievances Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Principal Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Invoke Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act & Finally ‘Set-Aside’ Ao’S Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Also Direct The Ao To Frame The Assessment ‘Denovo’.” 2. The Relevant Material Facts, As Culled Out From The Material On Record, Are As Follows. The Assessee Before Us Is A Firm. It Has Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2015-16 On 13.10.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs. 4,42,80,220/-. The Assessee`S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Project Development Activities. The Id Assessing Assessment Years.2015-16 Trividh Corporation Officer (Herein After Referred To ‘Ao’) Finalized The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, On 11.12.2017, Accepting The Returned Income Of The Assessee.

68, section 69, section 69A, section 696, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent. Despite such facts and circumstances and specific provisions of law in section 115BBE(2) of the Act, Assessing Officer has completed assessment determining total income at Rs.4,42,80,220/- and thereby allowing your erroneous

SHIVAM ENTERPRISE,ALTHAN vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

68, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent. Despite such facts and circumstances and specific provisions of law in section 115BBE(2) of the Act, Assessing Officer has completed assessment determining total at Rs.7,88,56,573/- and thereby allowing your erroneous claim to the tune

SHYAM CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

68, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent. Despite such facts and circumstances and specific provisions of law in section 115BBE(2) of the Act, Assessing Officer has completed assessment determining total at Rs.7,88,56,573/- and thereby allowing your erroneous claim to the tune

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 4, SURAT vs. KISHORKUMAR DHIRAJLAL KATHROTIYA, SURAT

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

68,00,000/- of sale consideration is towards service tax of Rs.8,16,000/-\nand stamp duty and registration of Rs.4,08,000/- totalling to\nRs.80,24,000/. Hence, there is no evidence of on-money paid by the said\ncustomer as seen from his statement. Moreover, no set pattern of on-\nmoney receipt has been found during the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 SURAT, SURAT vs. KISHORKUMAR DHIRAJLAL KATHROTIYA, SURAT

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

68,00,000/- of sale consideration is towards service tax of Rs.8,16,000/-\nand stamp duty and registration of Rs.4,08,000/- totalling to\nRs.80,24,000/. Hence, there is no evidence of on-money paid by the said\ncustomer as seen from his statement. Moreover, no set pattern of on-\nmoney receipt has been found during the course