INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(4), SURAT vs. M/S. MANSI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. M/S. Mansi Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat. Block No.80, Village. Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm6514M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/07/2022 29/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

section 68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders remained unexplained. As far as additional evidences filed during appellate proceedings are concerned i.e. assessment orders passed in case of lenders, Bank statement of assessee - company to prove business exigency, confirmation with Return Acknowledgement of A.Y.2012-13 and confirmation of accounts for A.Y. 2014-15 with

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 68 of the Act, which is to be taxed under the provisions u/s 115BBE of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the ‘on-money’ receipts.” (iv) Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.318/SRT/22 for A.Y.2017-18, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.319/SRT/22 for A Y 2018-19 and ground

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 68 of the Act, which is to be taxed under the provisions u/s 115BBE of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the ‘on-money’ receipts.” (iv) Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.318/SRT/22 for A.Y.2017-18, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.319/SRT/22 for A Y 2018-19 and ground

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 68 of the Act, which is to be taxed under the provisions u/s 115BBE of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the ‘on-money’ receipts.” (iv) Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.318/SRT/22 for A.Y.2017-18, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.319/SRT/22 for A Y 2018-19 and ground

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 68 of the Act, which is to be taxed under the provisions u/s 115BBE of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the ‘on-money’ receipts.” (iv) Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.318/SRT/22 for A.Y.2017-18, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.319/SRT/22 for A Y 2018-19 and ground

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 68 of the Act, which is to be taxed under the provisions u/s 115BBE of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the ‘on-money’ receipts.” (iv) Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.318/SRT/22 for A.Y.2017-18, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.319/SRT/22 for A Y 2018-19 and ground

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 68 of the Act, which is to be taxed under the provisions u/s 115BBE of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the ‘on-money’ receipts.” (iv) Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.318/SRT/22 for A.Y.2017-18, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.319/SRT/22 for A Y 2018-19 and ground

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

160/-. The Revenue has revised this second original ground and filed the additional ground wherein the Revenue has challenged the disallowance on account of unproved sundry creditors to the tune of Rs.96,96,244/-. The additional ground raised by the Revenue is as follows: “(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case

KAMLESH KUMAR GADIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1 Ground-1: On the facts and the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

section 69C of the Act; hence, SLP was dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which has dismissed the appeal of Department against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1994-1990 and 2095/Ahd/2010. The CIT(A) also observed that no evidence has been brought on record regarding unaccounted payment. He held

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

section 69C of the Act; hence, SLP was dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, which has dismissed the appeal of Department against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1994-1990 and 2095/Ahd/2010. The CIT(A) also observed that no evidence has been brought on record regarding unaccounted payment. He held

DARSHIT DEVELOPERS ,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.471/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Darshit Developers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, C/O Kashmiraben Shaileshbhai Valsad Room No.204/Palak Vs. Patel/ Bhagwati Bunglowes / Arcade, Near Pali Hill, Tithal Maninagar Society, Tithal Cross Road, Valsad-396001 Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfd 5807 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/09/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 07.07.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Cit[A], Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld A.O’S Reopening U/S 147 & Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Ignoring The Fact & Law That Incorrect Information Received From Ddit[Inv.] Does Not Give Jurisdictional To The A.O For Invoking Reassessment Proceedings Us/ 147 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld Addition Of Partner’S Capital Of Rs.12,50,000/- [Shilpaben Shah] As Well As Another Partner’S Capital Rs.12,50,000/- [Nipaben Shah] + Total Rs.25,00,000/- Ignoring The Fact That There Was No Business Activity Of Firm In The Year Under Assessment As Well As Partner’S Capital Contribution Cannot Be Treated As Income Of The Firm Considering Facts Of Appellant’S Case.”

160 (MP) and it was held that according to Section 68 the burden was on the ae to satisfactorily

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI M LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(3), SURAT

In the result, ground no.3 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.672/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) The Amroli Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Dcit, Karyakari Sahkari M. Ltd., Circle – 2(3), Utran Amroli, Taluka Choryasi, Surat Surat – 394105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat3043M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 18/12/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

68,160/-, after allowing only proportionate expenses, whereas, the appellant has offered this income to tax and has never claimed such deduction on this income. 4. That on facts, and in law, it ought to have been held that out of the eligible deduction

HARPALSINH FATESINH DEVDHARA,KOSAMBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Harpalsinh Fatehsinh Devdhara, Vs. The Ito, Hg-7, Diamond Plaza Zin Road Ward- 1, Tarsadi, Kosamba, Dist – Surat, Bardoli Surat – 394120. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bftpd9991J (Appellant) (Respondent)

160/- with net profit of Rs. 3,25,680/-. As against the same, you have claimed commission income from IDEA Cellular and in support of the same, furnished copy of Form 26AS. ITA.511/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Harpalsinh Fatehsinh Devdhara You are therefore required to justify your nature of income vis-a-vis filing of ITR on presumptive basis. Failing which, the expenses claimed

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

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

160 14.04.2019 4 As per JF-2/39 DILIP A SHAH 33,020 14.04.2019 5 As per JF-2/42 RAJUBHAI 13,002 - M.KANKOTIYA 6 As per JF-2/43 NAVINBHAI M 7,130 - 7 As per JF-2/44 MANUBHAI K. 10,280 15.04.2019 PATEL 8 As per JF-2/46 MANUBHAI K. 3,860 15.04.2019 PATEL

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

160/-. The appellant company is a manufacturer of stent and balloon catheters. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 29.06.2021. Various statutory notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notice were issued to the assessee. After considering the replies of the assessee, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) made the following additions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

160/-. The appellant company is a manufacturer of stent and balloon catheters. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 29.06.2021. Various statutory notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notice were issued to the assessee. After considering the replies of the assessee, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) made the following additions

GAUTAM D. JAIN,GUJARAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainigautam D Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(4) D6/201, Model Town Park, Opp. Room No. 110, 1St Floor, Vs. Vakilwadi, B/H Landmark Empires, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Parvatpatil, Surat. Surat. Pan : Abbpj 5222 B Email Add: Info@Prakashjhunjhunwala.Com Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short, NFAC) dated 30/11/2021 for the Assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal