BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, 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.

section 68 of the Act.” 5. Now, we shall take, one by one, these concise and summarize grounds of appeals. 6. Common ground no.1 is reproduced below for ready reference and adjudication: “1. Common ground No.1: In these grounds, assessing officer made addition by estimating the profit at the rate of 20% on alleged unaccounted job receipts. On appeal

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)

15,91,100/- 3 Addition on account of non-deduction of TDS 47,025/- ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on above additions / disallowances for concealment of income and issued notices u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s

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)

15,91,100/- 3 Addition on account of non-deduction of TDS 47,025/- ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on above additions / disallowances for concealment of income and issued notices u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s

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: (2014) 227 Taxmann 121 has held that "An amendment made to the taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove 'hardships' only of the assessee, not of the department-on the contrary, imposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship. Hon'ble ITAT Indore in the case of Priyadharshani Construction

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: (2014) 227 Taxmann 121 has held that "An amendment made to the taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove 'hardships' only of the assessee, not of the department-on the contrary, imposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship. Hon'ble ITAT Indore in the case of Priyadharshani Construction

M/S. DELUX DIAMONDS,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri C .M. Garg & Shri O. P. Meena

68,690. Subsequent to this, there was a search and seizure operation carried out on 03.10.2013 in the case of Shri Rajendra Jain Group, Sanjay Choudhary Group and Dharam Chand Jain Group of Mumbai, which revealed that the said Group had provided accommodation entries to various parties in respect of bogus Deluxe Diamond v. ITO Ward 1(3)(1)/I.T.A

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

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, (Delhi), Hon’ble Apex Court Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and in the case of Sumathy Dayal Vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that in such cases, principle was laid down that where entry of loan in a set of entities, mere furnishing certain details and payment made

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, (Delhi), Hon’ble Apex Court Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and in the case of Sumathy Dayal Vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that in such cases, principle was laid down that where entry of loan in a set of entities, mere furnishing certain details and payment made

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

1) (4) Surat/I.T.A. No.573/Ahd/2017/A.Y.:12-13 Page 15 of 31 assessee to produce all persons/share applicants for examination- however, assessee express its inability and submitted that share application had been received from identifiable persons having capacity and creditworthiness of making share application- no addition under section 68

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHANTINATH DEVELOPERS,, 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

15,000/- u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to explain the nature and source of each cash credit entry appearing in its books of account. Onus to substantiate the claim that it has been earned as business income lies upon the assessee which was not discharged

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. PRIME DEVELOPERS,, 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

15,000/- u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to explain the nature and source of each cash credit entry appearing in its books of account. Onus to substantiate the claim that it has been earned as business income lies upon the assessee which was not discharged

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

15,000/- u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to explain the nature and source of each cash credit entry appearing in its books of account. Onus to substantiate the claim that it has been earned as business income lies upon the assessee which was not discharged

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. VIP CORPORATION,, 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

15,000/- u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to explain the nature and source of each cash credit entry appearing in its books of account. Onus to substantiate the claim that it has been earned as business income lies upon the assessee which was not discharged

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

15,000/- u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to explain the nature and source of each cash credit entry appearing in its books of account. Onus to substantiate the claim that it has been earned as business income lies upon the assessee which was not discharged

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE BUILDERS,, 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

15,000/- u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to explain the nature and source of each cash credit entry appearing in its books of account. Onus to substantiate the claim that it has been earned as business income lies upon the assessee which was not discharged