DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. R K SHAH PROJECTS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.55/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S R.K.Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aditya Complex, Nr. Tax., Circle-2(1)(1), Room No.216, Vs. Kapadia Health Club, Bhatar Road, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 8584 Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

section 68 came from 01.04.2022 and the same does not apply to the loan transactions. The Ld. Counsel, to prove his arguments, has relied on the following judgments: (i) CIT vs Lovely Exports P. Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC) (ii) CIT vs Ranchod Jivabhai Nakhava, ITA No.50 of 2011 (Guj.) (iii) Hindustan Inks & Resins Ltd. vs DCIT

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 153A of the Act seeks to assessee the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years. The second proviso makes the intention of the legislature clear

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, 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 153A of the Act seeks to assessee the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years. The second proviso makes the intention of the legislature clear

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, 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 153A of the Act seeks to assessee the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years. The second proviso makes the intention of the legislature clear

SEJAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act to prove the genuineness of cash credits received by the assessee. Before us the assessee-company has submitted in respect of each share applicants, the following details and documents to prove the Identity, Creditworthiness and Genuineness of Transactions, which are given below: (1) In respect of M/s Momentum Real Estate Pvt Ltd, the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. MERRYGOLD GEMS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2020 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Merrygold Gems Pvt. Ltd., U-20, Jolly Square, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Vs Ram Chowk, Ghod Dod Road, Room No.114, 1St Floor, Surat-395007 Aaykar Bhavan, Pan No. Aaicm 7912 L Majura Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 68 can be made. The Ld. CIT(A) also followed the order of Tribunal in the case of Kalubhai A. Dhamelia in ITA No.88/SRT/2018 dated 18.09.2018, wherein it was also held that repayment of loan / advance constitute evidence regarding genuineness of the impugned loan or advance. On relying such decision, the Ld. CIT(A) held that such binding

RAMESHKUMAR KARSANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(5), SURAT

Accordingly the estimated addition made of Rs.35,166/-[0.5% of 70,33,182/-] by the AC invoking provision of section 69C of the I.T Act stand deleted. Thus this ground is allowed

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act is justified in absence of satisfactory explanation on the part of the appellant Accordingly I hold alleged LTCG for sale of share of M/s Sunrise Asian Limited as bogus and not eligible to exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act and the addition of Rs.70,33,182

SHRI SHAMJIBHAI M. SHELADIYA,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.234/Srt/2022 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Shamjibhai M Sheladiya Assistant Commissioner Of 11, Chandanbaug Society, Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Vs Opp. Dharam Nagar, A.K. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Road, Surat-395006 Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No: Afxps 3164 B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 03.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 27.05.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 06.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.15,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act,1961. Sh.Shamjibhai M Sheladiya 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Invoking Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act & In Thereby Taxing Entire Cash Credit Of Rs.15,00,000/- At 30 Percentage.

section 68 is to be deleted. The assessee further relied on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Rohini Builders (2003) 127 Taxman 523(Guj)/[2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 182

M/S KASHIRAM ATMARAM,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.236/Srt/2022 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) Kashiram Atmaram Deputy Commissioner Of 3/1949, Siddhi Sheri, Income-Tax, Vs Salabatpura, Surat-395003 Central Circle-(1)(1)(1), Pan No. Aadfk 2670 H Room No.108, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

182 CTR 373 (Guj) [19-03-2001] and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. (1986) 52 CTR 0138/(1986) 159 ITR 0078 SC. 5. The NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee confirmed the addition of Rs.35.00 lakh under section 68

UMESH P. MAHANSARIA (HUF),SURAT vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 151/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Umesh P. Mahansaria (Huf) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- C-501, The Legend, Vastu Gram, Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, बनाम Vesu, Surat-395 007 Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Building, Vs [Pan : Aaahu 6298 L] Adajan, Surat-395 009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

68 of the Act. The assessee filed its reply. The contents of reply are recorded in pages 30 to 42 in assessment order. In the reply, assessee explained that they purchased 1,000 shares @ Rs.35/- per share of Pyramid Trading & Finance Ltd. on 03.12.12 and face value share was at 10.00 per share. The shares were sent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH vs. M/S. MEGA AIMS, BHARUCH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.722 To 723/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch. B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 To 751/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) M/S. Mega Aims, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Bharuch. Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit(Dr) Appellant By Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2023

182 (SC). The important findings of ld CIT(A) are reproduced below: ITA. 722-723 & 750-751/SRT/2018/AYs.2013-14 to 2014-15 M/s. Mega Aims “5.8 Relying on the decisions above, the rate of profit of 15% is estimated in the case of the assessee. However, perusal of the audited account for the A.Y. 2011-12, it is found that there

M/S. MEGA AIMS,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHARUCH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.722 To 723/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch. B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 To 751/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) M/S. Mega Aims, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Bharuch. Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit(Dr) Appellant By Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2023

182 (SC). The important findings of ld CIT(A) are reproduced below: ITA. 722-723 & 750-751/SRT/2018/AYs.2013-14 to 2014-15 M/s. Mega Aims “5.8 Relying on the decisions above, the rate of profit of 15% is estimated in the case of the assessee. However, perusal of the audited account for the A.Y. 2011-12, it is found that there

M/S. MEGA AIMS,BHARUCH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.722 To 723/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch. B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 To 751/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) M/S. Mega Aims, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Bharuch. Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit(Dr) Appellant By Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2023

182 (SC). The important findings of ld CIT(A) are reproduced below: ITA. 722-723 & 750-751/SRT/2018/AYs.2013-14 to 2014-15 M/s. Mega Aims “5.8 Relying on the decisions above, the rate of profit of 15% is estimated in the case of the assessee. However, perusal of the audited account for the A.Y. 2011-12, it is found that there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH vs. M/S. MEGA AIMS, BHARUCH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.722 To 723/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch. B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 To 751/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) M/S. Mega Aims, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Bharuch. Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit(Dr) Appellant By Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2023

182 (SC). The important findings of ld CIT(A) are reproduced below: ITA. 722-723 & 750-751/SRT/2018/AYs.2013-14 to 2014-15 M/s. Mega Aims “5.8 Relying on the decisions above, the rate of profit of 15% is estimated in the case of the assessee. However, perusal of the audited account for the A.Y. 2011-12, it is found that there

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

68,770/- and claimed deduction of Rs.1.13 crores under section 80IA. The assessee filed objection against the reopening. The objection of assessee was rejected vide order dated 31.12.2012. The Assessing Officer after rejecting the objection of assessee proceeded for re-assessment. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order restricted the eligible profit to the extent of Rs.76

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

68,770/- and claimed deduction of Rs.1.13 crores under section 80IA. The assessee filed objection against the reopening. The objection of assessee was rejected vide order dated 31.12.2012. The Assessing Officer after rejecting the objection of assessee proceeded for re-assessment. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order restricted the eligible profit to the extent of Rs.76

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

68,770/- and claimed deduction of Rs.1.13 crores under section 80IA. The assessee filed objection against the reopening. The objection of assessee was rejected vide order dated 31.12.2012. The Assessing Officer after rejecting the objection of assessee proceeded for re-assessment. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order restricted the eligible profit to the extent of Rs.76

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

182 Taxman 183 (Guj) and Nirma Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 155 TAXMAN 330 (Guj). Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee submits that on merit all the grounds of appeal are covered by the decision of Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1849 & 1867/AHD/2014 for AY 2008-09 dated 27.12.2021. 7. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue