DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT vs. DIVA DIAMONDS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.128/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), 302, Gokul Building, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Srt/2020 [Arising In Ita No.128/Srt/2020] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of 302, Gokul Building, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.313/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Principal Cit-1,Surat 1St 302, Gokul Building, Room No.123, Floor, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

172 (Gujarat) 7 Micro Inks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat Vs. ITO - 2(3)(8), Surat ITA 1504/Ahd/2017 and 1381 /Ahd/2017 9 Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay) 10 PCIT, Surat 1 Vs. TejuaRohitkumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC) 11 The PCIT-17 vs. M/s Mohommad Haji Adam

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

3. Aggrieved by the addition made in assessment order and validity of order passed under section 153A, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before ld CIT(A) besides challenging AYs 10-11, 14-15, 15-16 & 17-18 Dineshchandra D Koradia, Nagjibhai M Sakariya & Sh. Hareshbhai M Sakariya the validity of addition, the assessee also challenged

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

172 ITR 250 (SC), Smt. Srilekha Banerjee & Ors vs. CIT, 1964\nAIR 697 (SC), Krishna Kumar vs. ITO, (2019) 107 taxmann.com 647 (SC), CIT-1 vs.\nShraban Kumar Sharma, 214 taxmann.com 101 (Guj.) and S. Muthukumar vs. ITO,\n(2014) 49 taxmann.com 44 (Chennai – Trib.) and held that the appellant failed to\ndischarge its onus as per provisions of section

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

SHRI VIMALCHAND JAIN,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result the ground No

68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs.2,92,93,288/- represented alleged purchases from ''bogus suppliers

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)

3) of the Act. Therefore, ld Counsel prays the Bench that order passed by ld CIT(A) is just and proper and the same may be upheld. ITA No.3330/AHD/2016 A.Y. 12-13 M/s Transit Geo Suystems Integrators Pvt. Ltd. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that assessee has submitted

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHYAM CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roydcit, Vs. M/S. Shyam Corporation, Circle - 3, “Silver Crest”, F.P. No.67 & Surat 70, T.P.S. No.14(Pal), Pal, Surat -395 005. [Pan No. Abefs 9360 G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

172 (SC), such undisclosed income to the tune of Rs.1 lac was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68, 69, 69C of the Act. ITA No.571/A/12 DCIT vs. Shyam corporation Asst.Year – 2008-09 In appeal, the Learned CIT(A) considered the fact that the assessee does not have any other income other than the said business of construction

SHANTAI EXIM LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, ITA.No.436/SRT/2018 of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Meena

3 of the assessment order. The above impounded material consists of files. More importantly the loose paper file SEL-XIV consists of 187 pages, out of which, pages from 1 to 169 and 173 to 187 are ledger copies of various transactions made by the company. Pages from 170 to 172 pertain to correspondence regarding search carried out by Commercial

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT vs. SHANTAI EXIM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA.No.436/SRT/2018 of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Meena

3 of the assessment order. The above impounded material consists of files. More importantly the loose paper file SEL-XIV consists of 187 pages, out of which, pages from 1 to 169 and 173 to 187 are ledger copies of various transactions made by the company. Pages from 170 to 172 pertain to correspondence regarding search carried out by Commercial

ACIT, CIR-1(3), SURAT vs. PRAVIN PANNALAL SHAH, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pravin Pannalal Shah Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Income-Tax, Circle-1(3, Vs. Surat-395007 Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrps 1045 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

3 SOT 171, the Hon'ble ITAT Ahemdabad Bench held that: “the assessee received gift from the NRI from their NRE accounts. Copies of gifts declaration etc were filed. The Hon'ble Bench held that the assessee had proved by evidences and material, the identity of the donor, genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the donor and therefore

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

3 of remand report. 4 National Electricals 5 Shree Sai Transport Opening Balance Rs. 8,53,500/-. Payment made Rs.3,00,000/- in this year. There is no new credit transaction in the year of appeal. 6 Kesar Steel Suppliers There is no new credit transaction in the year Assessment Years.2011-12 Western India Construction [ 7 Ambica Steel under appeal. Payment

SPARSH IMPEX,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअ पीलसं./Ita Nos.27&60/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Sparsh Impex Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(8), Room No. 407, 4Th Floor, 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Gujar Fallia, Mahidharpura, Surat- Anavil Business Centre, Hazira 395001 Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), M/S Sparsh Impex Room No. 407, 4Th Floor, Anavil 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Business Centre, Hazira Road, Gujar Fallia, Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achfs 7559 M (Appellant ) (Respondent)

172 (Gujarat) 7 Micro Inks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat Vs. ITO - 2(3)(8), Surat ITA 1504/Ahd/2017 and 1381 /Ahd/2017 9 Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay) 10 PCIT, Surat 1 Vs. TejuaRohitkumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC) 11 The PCIT-17 vs. M/s Mohommad Haji Adam

ITO, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. M/S. SPARSH IMPEX, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअ पीलसं./Ita Nos.27&60/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Sparsh Impex Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(8), Room No. 407, 4Th Floor, 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Gujar Fallia, Mahidharpura, Surat- Anavil Business Centre, Hazira 395001 Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), M/S Sparsh Impex Room No. 407, 4Th Floor, Anavil 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Business Centre, Hazira Road, Gujar Fallia, Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achfs 7559 M (Appellant ) (Respondent)

172 (Gujarat) 7 Micro Inks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat Vs. ITO - 2(3)(8), Surat ITA 1504/Ahd/2017 and 1381 /Ahd/2017 9 Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay) 10 PCIT, Surat 1 Vs. TejuaRohitkumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC) 11 The PCIT-17 vs. M/s Mohommad Haji Adam

SANJAYKUMAR DEVKISHAN PANWAR,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

68,364/- 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 569 & 588/SRT/2019/AY.2008-09 Sanjay Kumar Devkishan Panwar 9. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue as well as Assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue contended that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT, SURAT vs. SANJAYKUMAR DEVKISHAN PANWAR,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.569/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.588/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2008-09) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Sanjaykumar Devkishan Panwar, 207, 2Nd Floor, 6/2060/61 Vedant Surat. Building Bojabhai Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aovpp8989A (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 03/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

68,364/- 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 569 & 588/SRT/2019/AY.2008-09 Sanjay Kumar Devkishan Panwar 9. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue as well as Assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue contended that reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer

REVA ENTERPRISE,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.259, 380 & 414/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Reva Enterprises, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Vs. Plot No. 50, Gandhi Market, Ward – 2(4), Rajpipla Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch Sarangpore, Narmada - 393001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfr8509E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr) With Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

172 (Mad.) has held that amendment to section 115BBE increasing rate of tax on income referred to in section 68 from 30% to 60% with w.e.f. 01.04.2017 is not applicable to transactions prior to 01.04.2017. Hence, the enhanced rate is not applicable for AY 2017-18. Respectfully following the above decisions, the AO is directed

REVA ENTERPRISE,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.259, 380 & 414/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Reva Enterprises, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Vs. Plot No. 50, Gandhi Market, Ward – 2(4), Rajpipla Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch Sarangpore, Narmada - 393001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfr8509E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr) With Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

172 (Mad.) has held that amendment to section 115BBE increasing rate of tax on income referred to in section 68 from 30% to 60% with w.e.f. 01.04.2017 is not applicable to transactions prior to 01.04.2017. Hence, the enhanced rate is not applicable for AY 2017-18. Respectfully following the above decisions, the AO is directed

REVA ENTERPRISE,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.259, 380 & 414/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Reva Enterprises, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Vs. Plot No. 50, Gandhi Market, Ward – 2(4), Rajpipla Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch Sarangpore, Narmada - 393001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfr8509E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr) With Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

172 (Mad.) has held that amendment to section 115BBE increasing rate of tax on income referred to in section 68 from 30% to 60% with w.e.f. 01.04.2017 is not applicable to transactions prior to 01.04.2017. Hence, the enhanced rate is not applicable for AY 2017-18. Respectfully following the above decisions, the AO is directed