DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE KUBERJI ASSOCIATES, SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) आ. (खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A No.28/Srt/2023 (Ay 2019-20) Shree Kuberji Associates, Assistant Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Shree Kuberji Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs Corporate House, Khana Kuva Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Road, Begumpura, Surat- Majura Gate, Sura-395001 395002 Pan No. Acqfs 0423 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A No.29/Srt/2023 (Ay 2020-21) Shree Kuberji Associates Assistant Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Shree Kuberji Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Corporate House, Khana Kuva Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Sura-395001 Road, Begumpura, Surat- Vs 395002 Pan No. Acqfs 0423 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.155/Srt/2023 (Ay 2020-21) Dy.Commissioner Of Income- M/S Shree Kuberji Associates Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat, 2Nd Floor, Shree Kuberji Vs Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Corporate House, Khana Kuva Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Road, Begumpura, Surat- Surat-395001 395002 Pan No. Acqfs 0423 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent आ. (खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A No.30/Srt/2023 (Ay 2019-20) Shree Kuberji Leisure & Assistant Commissioner Of Infraspace Llp, Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs Plot No.2 H/28/29, Shree Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Kuberji Corporate House, Majura Gate, Sura-395001 Khana Kuva Road, Begumpura, Surat-395002 Pan No. Adcfs 0636 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A No.34/Srt/2023 (Ay 2019-20) Dy.Commissioner Of Income- M/S Shree Kuberji Leisure & Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat, Infraspace Llp, Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Plot No.2.H/28/29, Shree

158 CTR 374 (Guj) and in the case of Kishore Mohan Telwala vs. ACIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Ahd. Trib.) 651 dated 02.09.1998, wherein the net profit of on-money was estimated from 8% to 20% thereby the Assessing Officer estimated 30% of profit from on-money as net profit of the assessee. The assessing officer thereby working out profit

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. TRANSIT GEO SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3330/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) D.C.I.T., Circle-2(1)(1), M/S Transit Geo Systems Integrator Pvt. Ltd., 13-C-404, 1St Floor, Room No.223, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Parshvanath Complex, Above Bhakti Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Automobiles, Udhna, Magdalla Road, Surat-395017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadct 4158 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

158-160), v) Share application form (pb pages 161-162), vi) Sample copy of work order (pb page 163). ITA No.3330/AHD/2016 A.Y. 12-13 M/s Transit Geo Suystems Integrators Pvt. Ltd. (i) In respect of K.M. Traders (Prop: Kalpesh Rajnikant Shah), the following evidences were submitted, viz: i) Ledger account of K.M. Traders (pb page 164),ii) Contra

THE ITO, WARD-9(3),, SURAT vs. SHRI NARENDRA PREMJIBHAI PATEL, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1159 To 1161/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2004-05 To 2006-07) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-9(4), Vs. Shri Narendra Premjibhai Patel, Surat. Survey No.6, Mangalwadi, Opp. Geb, Varachha Road, Surat-395 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aigpp1584Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. 5. Facts of the issue, which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 44,401/- on 07-02-2006. The assessee’s case was reopened by AO on 12-10-2010 and notice u/s 148 was issued and served upon the assessee

THE ITO, WARD-9(3),, SURAT vs. SHRI NARENDRA PREMJIBHAI PATEL, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1159 To 1161/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2004-05 To 2006-07) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-9(4), Vs. Shri Narendra Premjibhai Patel, Surat. Survey No.6, Mangalwadi, Opp. Geb, Varachha Road, Surat-395 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aigpp1584Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. 5. Facts of the issue, which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 44,401/- on 07-02-2006. The assessee’s case was reopened by AO on 12-10-2010 and notice u/s 148 was issued and served upon the assessee

THE ITO, WARD-9(3),, SURAT vs. SHRI NARENDRA PREMJIBHAI PATEL, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1159 To 1161/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2004-05 To 2006-07) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-9(4), Vs. Shri Narendra Premjibhai Patel, Surat. Survey No.6, Mangalwadi, Opp. Geb, Varachha Road, Surat-395 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aigpp1584Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. 5. Facts of the issue, which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 44,401/- on 07-02-2006. The assessee’s case was reopened by AO on 12-10-2010 and notice u/s 148 was issued and served upon the assessee

R.S. TRADELINK PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No’S.1288 & 1289/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2006-07 R.S.Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O.Bombay Way Bridge, Magdalla Income Tax, Port Road, Magdalla, Surat. Circle-4, Surat. [Pan: Aabcr 6607 A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri R.P.Rastogi – Sr.Dr

section 68 are not attracted to amounts representing purchases made on credit – Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding of fact based on the appreciation of material and evidence R.S.Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Surat /ITA No.1288 & 1289/AHD/2013 : A.Y.2006-07 Page 5 of 15 on record that the AO has accepted the purchases, sales as also the trading result

BAYER VAPI PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,),VAPI vs. THE A CIT., VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.1688/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bayer Vapi Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Income Tax, Private Limited), Plot No.306/3, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Phase-Ii, Vapi – 396 195, Gujarat. [Pan: Aabcb 2100 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul K Patel, Advocate & Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca Shri Prasenjit Singh – Cit(Dr) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 18.07.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 27.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The 1. Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Valsad, Valsad(In Short “The Cit(A)”) Dated 31.03.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita 2. No.1688/Ahd/2014 Read As Under : “01. The Appellant Company Has Neither Concealed Its Income Nor Submitted Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & The Adjustments/ Additions Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Facts Of The Case & Law & Deserves To Be Deleted. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.Acit-Vapi/Ita No.1688/Ahd/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 2 Of 20

68,000/- 4. Reallocation of staff welfare expenses between Bilag unit and BEOU unit – Rs.72,846/-. 5. Reallocation of Oil & Petrol expenses between Bilag Unit and BEOU unit : - Rs.41,632/- 6. Depreciation on excess payment made towards purchase of intangible asset – Rs.7,95,27,784/- 7. Legal & Professional Fees – Rs.2,02,31,841/- Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(formerly known

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

68 of the Act. Consequently, the AO taxed it under the 'Income from Other Sources' as against it being declared as 'Business Income' during the course of survey as well as in the return of income. e) The appellant has not appealed against the order u/s. 143(3). f) The AO held that in the above circumstances, the appellant

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. CHHAYA ASSOCIATES,, 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

68 of the Act. Consequently, the AO taxed it under the 'Income from Other Sources' as against it being declared as 'Business Income' during the course of survey as well as in the return of income. e) The appellant has not appealed against the order u/s. 143(3). f) The AO held that in the above circumstances, the appellant

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

68 of the Act. Consequently, the AO taxed it under the 'Income from Other Sources' as against it being declared as 'Business Income' during the course of survey as well as in the return of income. e) The appellant has not appealed against the order u/s. 143(3). f) The AO held that in the above circumstances, the appellant

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. VISHWAS HITECH INFRA PROJECT PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

68 of the Act. Consequently, the AO taxed it under the 'Income from Other Sources' as against it being declared as 'Business Income' during the course of survey as well as in the return of income. d) The assessee would not have disclosed the impugned income if survey proceedings u/s. 133A were not conducted. e) The appellant has not appealed

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

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

68 of the Act. Consequently, the AO taxed it under the 'Income from Other Sources' as against it being declared as 'Business Income' during the course of survey as well as in the return of income. d) The assessee would not have disclosed the impugned income if survey proceedings u/s. 133A were not conducted. e) The appellant has not appealed

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

68 of the Act. Consequently, the AO taxed it under the 'Income from Other Sources' as against it being declared as 'Business Income' during the course of survey as well as in the return of income. e) The appellant has not appealed against the order u/s. 143(3). f) The AO held that in the above circumstances, the appellant

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE INFRA, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

68 of the Act. Consequently, the AO taxed it under the 'Income from Other Sources' as against it being declared as 'Business Income' during the course of survey as well as in the return of income. d) The assessee would not have disclosed the impugned income if survey proceedings u/s. 133A were not conducted. e) The appellant has not appealed

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण . वष" /A Y: 1 1992/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs Imperial Developers, Of Income Tax, . ‘Blossom’ Near Vesu Canal A.Y. 2013-14 Central Opp.Dps School, Circle-3, Surat – 395 Vesu, Surat. 001. [Pan: Aadfi 5694 R] िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah - Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Srinivas T.Bidari – Sr.Dr

68 of the Act. Consequently, the AO taxed it under the 'Income from Other Sources' as against it being declared as 'Business Income' during the course of survey as well as in the return of income. c) The AO held that in the above circumstances, the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and went on to levy penalty

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. AASTHA ECO HOMES,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

68 of the Act. Consequently, the AO taxed it under the 'Income from Other Sources' as against it being declared as 'Business Income' during the course of survey as well as in the return of income. c) The AO observed that the income has been disclosed because incriminating documents were found during the course of Survey. Had the survey proceedings

THE ITO, WARD-1,, BARDOLI vs. M/S. GIRIRAJ DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

68 of the Act. Consequently, the AO taxed it under the 'Income from Other Sources' as against it being declared as 'Business Income' during the course of survey as well as in the return of income. d) The assessee would not have disclosed the impugned income if survey proceedings u/s. 133A were not conducted. e) The appellant has not appealed

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

In the result, all the Ten Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above

68 of the Act. Consequently, the AO taxed it under the 'Income from Other Sources' as against it being declared as 'Business Income' during the course of survey as well as in the return of income. d) The assessee would not have disclosed the impugned income if survey proceedings u/s. 133A were not conducted. e) The appellant has not appealed