RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

68 of the Act, therefore the question of applicability of section 115BBE of the Act, does not arise, hence we allow ground No.6 raised by the assessee. 32. In the result, assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, is partly allowed in above terms. 33. Now we shall take Summarised and concise Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

68 of the Act, therefore the question of applicability of section 115BBE of the Act, does not arise, hence we allow ground No.6 raised by the assessee. 32. In the result, assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, is partly allowed in above terms. 33. Now we shall take Summarised and concise Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

68 of the Act of 1961 straight-away merely because of the reason that the genuineness of the transaction shown in the heading of the sundry creditors was not found genuine. 13. In view of the above reasons, following s. 145(3) the assessing officer should have proceeded under s. 144 and should have followed the procedure of assessment

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

68 of the Act of 1961 straight-away merely because of the reason that the genuineness of the transaction shown in the heading of the sundry creditors was not found genuine. 13. In view of the above reasons, following s. 145(3) the assessing officer should have proceeded under s. 144 and should have followed the procedure of assessment

SHRI VASANTBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL,,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9,, VAPI

In the result, ground no 2 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing ) Nirmalaben Vasanthbhai Patel Vs Income Tax Officer, L/ H Of Vasanthbhai Patel, Ward No.-9, Wapi, Gujarat ‘Sneh’Desai Streat, At Post Office Salvav, Vapi, District Valsad, Gujarat. Email: Hardikvora.Ca@Gmail.Com Pan : Accpp2166L Appellant Respondednt Appellant By Sh. Hardik Vora Ar Advocate Respondent By Sh. O.P Meena Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 03 /09/2020 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memebr : 1. This Appeal By Assessing Is Directed Against The Order Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Valsad, Gujarat Dated 23Rd August 2016, Which Arises From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Read With Section 147 Income Tax Act Dated 12Th March 2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal; (I) On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Subject The Assessing Officer Has Erred In Issuing The Notice Under Section 147 Of The Act & Consequently Finalizing The Assessment Under Section 144 Rws 147 Of The Act. (Ii) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Accepting Additional Evidences Under Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Rules.

68 of the Act. The assessing officer also disallowed 20% of expenses as well as 20% car expenses from total expenses claimed by the assessee in his profit and loss account. The assessing officer completed the assessment under section 144

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 68 and the 1st condition therein is the Identity of the depositors. In the present case, it is a fact on record that all the said depositors are having PAN and are also filing Income Tax Returns. Further, it is also a fact that the summons u/s. 131 of the Act issued by the AO to these depositors

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 68 and the 1st condition therein is the Identity of the depositors. In the present case, it is a fact on record that all the said depositors are having PAN and are also filing Income Tax Returns. Further, it is also a fact that the summons u/s. 131 of the Act issued by the AO to these depositors

SMT. PURNIMA SUNIL AGRAWAL,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,VAPI WARD-2,, VAPI

In the result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court-Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3224/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 902, Orchid Tower, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi. Chharwada Road, Vapi Dist. Valsad-396195. [Pan: Aavpa 0055 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 144 of the Act proceeded to add the sundry creditors amount in the income of the assessee under s. 68

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WASRD-3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

144 r.w.s 147 and a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). ITA Nos.40 & 41/SRT/2022 Ganesh Ganpat Alim 2. First, we shall take ITA No.41/SRT/2022 for AY.2012-13, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows

GANESH GANPAT ALIM,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

144 r.w.s 147 and a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). ITA Nos.40 & 41/SRT/2022 Ganesh Ganpat Alim 2. First, we shall take ITA No.41/SRT/2022 for AY.2012-13, wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows

SANJAY SIVABHAGWAN KEYAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal Ito, Ward – 2(3)(4), Flat No.304, 3Rd Floor, Room No.613, Vatika Township, Near Model, Vs. Aaaykar Bhavan, Township, Parvat Patia Majura Gate, Surat - 395010. Surat - 395002. Pan No. Adspk 6097N Appellant Respondent

144 of the Act on 30.09.2016, bringing to tax the entire cash deposit of bringing to tax the entire cash deposit of ₹13,91,936/ 13,91,936/- as unexplained credits. 3. In In In appeal, the assessee contended before appeal, the assessee contended before the learned appeal, the assessee contended before the learned the learned Commissioner of Income Commissioner

SHRI BALAJI J BHAGNURE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Balaji J. Bhagnure Income Tax Officer, 98, Santkrupa Society, In Ward-2(3)(1) Aayakar Vs Lane Of Mahadev Mandir, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Godadara Devadh Road, Surat-395001 Godadara, Surat-394210 Pan No: Alkpb 8794 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 27.12.2022 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 [For Short To As “Nfac/ Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 26.07.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 11.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Reopening Assessment By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The I.T. Act 1961. Sh. Balaji J Bhagnure 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The I.T. Act.

144 of the Act and treated the entire alleged contractual receipt of Rs. 7,38,882/-as unexplained cash credit under section 68

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 , viz: (i) identity, (ii) creditworthiness and (iii) genuineness of the transactions.That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 13.Ground no.2 relates to addition on account of estimation of Gross Profit

KAVISH FOCUS PIPES PVT LTD (NOW KNOWN AS GSPL SEAMLESS PIPES PVT. LTD),SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.48 & 09/Srt/2020 (Ays 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Kaviish Focus Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer (Now Known As Gspl Seamless Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, 1St Floor, Vs Pipes Pvt. Ltd.) Survey No.389 Room No.113, Aaykar Bhawan, Orma, Taluika Olpad, Surat-394 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 540 [Pan Aaeck 0608 B] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

68 of the Act. The assessing officer passed assessment order under section 144 on 25.02.2015. ITA Nos.48 & 09/SRT/2020 (A.Ys

KAVIISH FOCUS PIPES PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.48 & 09/Srt/2020 (Ays 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Kaviish Focus Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer (Now Known As Gspl Seamless Ward-1(1)(3), Surat, 1St Floor, Vs Pipes Pvt. Ltd.) Survey No.389 Room No.113, Aaykar Bhawan, Orma, Taluika Olpad, Surat-394 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 540 [Pan Aaeck 0608 B] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

68 of the Act. The assessing officer passed assessment order under section 144 on 25.02.2015. ITA Nos.48 & 09/SRT/2020 (A.Ys

M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

144 employees @ Rs. 12000/-pm. The assessee has debited expenses of Rs. 35,10,019/- in its P&L account. Thus, the Assessing Officer worked out the addition of Rs. 1,72,25,891/- (Rs. 2,07,36,000 – Rs. 35,10,019). The assessee explained that salary expenses were incurred for total 68 employees and all were registered under

DY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2, SURAT vs. M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO., SURAT

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

144 employees @ Rs. 12000/-pm. The assessee has debited expenses of Rs. 35,10,019/- in its P&L account. Thus, the Assessing Officer worked out the addition of Rs. 1,72,25,891/- (Rs. 2,07,36,000 – Rs. 35,10,019). The assessee explained that salary expenses were incurred for total 68 employees and all were registered under

SACHINKUMAR RAJUBHAI PRANCHVANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

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

144 of the Act.\n2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:\n“1) Both lower authorities erred in ignoring the facts and circumstances of the\ncase, whilst making an addition of Rs. 10,01,020/-.\n2) Both lower authorities erred in applying the provisions of section 68