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

section 145(3) of the Act, are as follows: (i) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer

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

section 145(3) of the Act, are as follows: (i) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer

DIYA FABRICS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

2) Chaturbhai M. Raval: Address: Nil No 30,497/- Nil N.A., PAN No.:N.A. (3) Gujarat Laxmi M.K.S.M. Ltd. Nil Yes 500,000 500,000 Address: N.A., PAN No.:N.A. (4) Kanubhai R. Parmar Address: 200,145 Yes 60,000 260,145 N.A., PAN No.:N.A. (5) K.G. Parmar Nil No 40,000 Nil Address

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

2 Harishbhai G Chovatiya Assessing Officer noted that assessee furnished withdrawal of Rs.42,42,700/- from his bank but no day-to-day details of expenses were furnished. The assessee has shown loan statement as a home loan of Rs.36.00 lakh from Bank of Baroda. The assessee has made withdrawal of Rs. 1.00 to Rs. 3.00 lakhs which shows that

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

2% of the turnover. In such circumstances, the amount of Rs. 1,17,31,334=00 could not have been added relying on the same books of accounts which were rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. Mr.Patel pointed out that this aspect has been well-considered by the Tribunal. 13. Mr.Patel, in support

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

2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III ought not to have upheld addition of Rs.1426541/- towards estimated gross profit by rejecting books of accounts and Rs.12513000/- towards unexplained cash credit. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III has erred in not considering the facts of the case submitted to the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III ought not to have upheld addition of Rs.1426541/- towards estimated gross profit by rejecting books of accounts and Rs.12513000/- towards unexplained cash credit. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III has erred in not considering the facts of the case submitted to the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

THE ITO, WARD - 3(2)(2),, SURAT vs. SHRI POPATBHAI RANCHHODBHAI BHADANI,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.585/Ahd/2016/Srt & Co. No. 63/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2011-12 1. Income Tax Officer, Vs 1. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat Bhadani, House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R Vs 2. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai 2.Income Tax Officer, Bhadani, Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68 as against unaccounted income as unaccounted income has been generated by rotating the unaccounted loan taken at Rs.12,00,000/-. Therefore, Ground No. 1 to 4 of Revenue are dismissed. Since we have upheld the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A). Therefore, the Cross Objection challenging the sustenance of addition

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 16 & 17, simultaneously scrutiny assessments were conducted for assessment year 2012-13 by the concerned AOs. The copies of orders u/s 143(3) are produced in Paper Book. These 9 share applicants together account for 86 % of the total share application money received during the year. There is no addition, or adverse inference

SHRI CHANDUBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI BORAD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chandubhai Parshottambhai Income Tax Officer, Borad, 162, 163, Akshardham Ward-3(3)(5), Surat, Vs Society, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Varachha Road, Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No: Ajfpb 2959 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

145(3) of the Act. On the other place, ld. CIT(A) in para-4.5 held that all the persons from whom advance was received failed to file confirmation in response to notice issued under section 133(6) or notice remained unserved, and the lenders have meagre income as compared to give loan amount. The creditworthiness of the parties

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

2. Mohd. Mukhtar Shaikh 2513115 3. Shaikh Mo.Faijul Faijul Rehman M 1713774 4. AUaudin Ahmed Husain Shaikh 3287785 5. Khureshbhai M Shaikh 1619941 Total ……… 9728236 In this regard, you have been asked during the course of hearing the case on 02.08.2017 and notice dated 30.10.2017 to furnish the latest address and produced the above parties, However you have not produced

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

2,00,000/- where maintenance of PAN, address, etc was not mandatory, hence the assessee did not collect those details at time of making the sales over the counter in the retail segment. 4.5 It was further submitted that the assessee could not produce the retail customers before the Assessing Officer, as no customer particulars were maintained in such transactions

BSAS INFOTECH LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat), the Gujarat held that where assessee took loan from two parties and assessee had furnished requisite material showing identity of loan givers and that assessee was not beneficiary as loan was repaid in subsequent year, no addition under section 68 could be made on account of such loan. While passing the order the Gujarat High

BSAS INFORTECH LIMITED, SURAT,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat), the Gujarat held that where assessee took loan from two parties and assessee had furnished requisite material showing identity of loan givers and that assessee was not beneficiary as loan was repaid in subsequent year, no addition under section 68 could be made on account of such loan. While passing the order the Gujarat High

BSAS INFOTECH LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat), the Gujarat held that where assessee took loan from two parties and assessee had furnished requisite material showing identity of loan givers and that assessee was not beneficiary as loan was repaid in subsequent year, no addition under section 68 could be made on account of such loan. While passing the order the Gujarat High

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. SURENDRAN NANOO, KERALA

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.821/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing)

68 of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in accepting the argument of the assessee that no fresh funds were infused as the gift transaction is books entry and has not appreciated that the assessee Shri Surendran Nanoo has received fresh funds in the form of gift

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTERS PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

145(3) r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making above addition in the order u/s 153A when there was no new incriminating material found in the course of search

SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

145(3) r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making above addition in the order u/s 153A when there was no new incriminating material found in the course of search