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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

150,000 Dhanhani Township Varacha Surat 15 Poonam BAQPD0645G D-5, 403, Krishna 1,800,000 Dhanani Township Varacha Surat 16 Prakash AHZPD4560G C/l, 101, Krishna 3,000,000 Dhanani Township , Varacha Surat 17 Shilpa AXGPD1913Q C/l, 101, Krishna 2,400,000 Dhanani Township , Varacha Surat Details of these above noted persons were called for from assessee. Except 3 cases

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

1 to 3 relates to treatment of capital contribution of Rs. 1.98 Crore by partners under section 68, ground No. 4 relates addition of Rs. 48 lakhs under section 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

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,80,493/- was disallowed by the assessing officer. 16. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) adjudicated the issue relating to validity of assessment under section 153C of the Act, observing as follows: Apparently, the 1st ground in the original grounds

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

68,400/- out of which the sum of Rs.2,10,518/- was pertained to his travel out of India, which is not permissible as per provisions of section 10(5) of the I.T. Act. Accordingly the sum of Rs.2,40,518/- is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. I am satisfied that assessee has furnished

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. WESTERN INDIA COSTRUCTION,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section 68 or Sector, 41(1) of I. T Act. 9 Sai Suppliers 10 Shree Bhagwati Traders 11 Monica Roofing 12 Scaff Roofing 13 Shy Engineering 14 Bhakti Sales Agencies There is no discrepancy. 15 Kheteshwar There is no discrepancy. Hardware & Electricals 16 Hasanalibhai & Sons There is no discrepancy. 17 Vijay Builders There is no discrepancy. LR ACTT observation

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

68 employees are working and their total salary debited for the year is Rs. 31,07,326/- . On the basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions. Before us, no contrary fact or evidence or any law is brought to our notice by the ld. CIT-DR except relying on the order of Assessing Officer. Thus

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

68 employees are working and their total salary debited for the year is Rs. 31,07,326/- . On the basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions. Before us, no contrary fact or evidence or any law is brought to our notice by the ld. CIT-DR except relying on the order of Assessing Officer. Thus

S N TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, 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.77/Srt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1St Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs0060R

68, 69, 69A to 69D could not be applied retrospectively." In view of the various judicial pronouncement, cited hereinabove, it is manifested that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act did not stand amended as on first day of April for the Financial Year 2016-17, it would not apply to the assessment for that year

KANAIYALAL LABHUBHAI NAROLA,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurpose

section\n250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act') by the Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (Appeals) 11, Ahmedabad, [in short “the CIT(A)"],'), dated\n29.09.2023 for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15.\n2.\nThe grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are as follows:\n“(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

section 143(2) of the\nIncome tax Act 1961 was issued on 29.09.2018 and served upon the assessee\nby e-mail ID mention on the ITR/latest email ID. Thereafter notice u/s.142 (1)\nof the Act was issued on 14.02.2019, 24.08.2019. 07.10.2019 and 21.10.2019\nalong with detailed questionnaire which was duly served upon the assessee.\nIn response to the notices

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

68 of the I.T. Act as the receipt was not declared in the ROI and the receipt of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- remain unexplained as per the provision of sec.68 of the I.T. Act. 160/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 M/s Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd. 2. In addition to ground No.1, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, ADAJAN vs. ABHISHEK NAVNIT DOSHI , MAHIDHARPURA

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Ito, Abhishek Navnit Doshi, 405, Income Tax Office, Anavil 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Business Centre, Hazira Road, Vs. Jin Shanti Bldg. Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395003. Surat-395009. Pan No. Afhpd 0064 M Appellant Respondent

68,292/– as unexplained investment under section 69 of the as unexplained investment under section 69 of the as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and made an addition of 100% of the purchases so found to be Act and made an addition of 100% of the purchases so found to be Act and made

M/S. MAYUR CONSTRUCTION,,VALSAD vs. THE ACIT., VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 1042/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mayur Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad. 110, Amar Chamber,Valsad. S [Pan: Aadfm 9859 L] . अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

150% of tax sought to be evaded. Thus, the AO worked out penalty of Rs.11,22,133/-. 6. On further appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the order of penalty was upheld. Thus, further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. The appeal came up for hearing on 01.09.2020. The Learned Authorised Representative

LATE MANISHBHAI NAGINDAS GAJJAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1335/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2011-12 Late Manishbhai Nagindas Gajjar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through L/H Illaben Manishbhai Ward- 6(3) Surat Gajjar, 316Kh Luhar Mohhallo , Palgam, Chaurasi Surat 359009 Pan: Aovpg 1860K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming reference to Valuation Officer u/s. 55A of the Act by the AO to estimate Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981 of agricultural land despite value adopted by the appellant was much more than FMV determined by the DVO. Ld CIT (A) ought to have quashed such action

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

68,256/- \n\n22. Against the addition of Rs.85,55,9547- unexplained investment, unaccounted\nincome and unaccounted expenditure outside the books of accounts relating\nto Cashew business undertaken abroad at Conakry, the Id CIT(A) held that the\nAO made this addition on the basis of seized material, an MS word document\nnamed income and expenditure statement was found

BHARATKUMAR RANCHODBHAI SONI,NA vs. ARIVS.PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

150/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) selected the case for scrutiny regarding large cash deposits during the demonetization period. The AO made additions to the income by estimating the Gross Profit (GP) at 6.74% instead of 4.24%. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked Section 263, holding the AO's order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue

BALDEVBHAI VITHHAKBHAI PATEL,PARDI vs. ITO, WARD 1, VAPI

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

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit\nfor condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been\nstated that the notices by the CIT(A) were sent on wrong e-mail id on\n'agriculturepardi@gmail.com' instead of ‘rrassociatesvapi@gmail.com'\n(mentioned in Form 35). After receiving a phone call from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, SURAT vs. SHRI SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross appeal of\nthe assessee is partly allowed

68,256/-\n22. Against the addition of Rs.85,55,9547- unexplained investment, unaccounted\nincome and unaccounted expenditure outside the books of accounts relating\nto Cashew business undertaken abroad at Conakry, the Id CIT(A) held that the\nAO made this addition on the basis of seized material, an MS word document\nnamed income and expenditure statement was found and seized