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.

195]. 34. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that according to section 68 of the Income Tax Act, where any ITA Nos.52/SRT/2022 & 171, 174/SRT/2021/IT(SS)A 69, 70, 75 & 76/SRT/2021 Betex India Ltd. & Dhanpriya Prints Pvt. Ltd. sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained

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.

195]. 34. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that according to section 68 of the Income Tax Act, where any ITA Nos.52/SRT/2022 & 171, 174/SRT/2021/IT(SS)A 69, 70, 75 & 76/SRT/2021 Betex India Ltd. & Dhanpriya Prints Pvt. Ltd. sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained

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

THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. PANKAJ ENKA PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

6) was not served on the assessee but as per the report of the Investigation Wing, the summons were issued by the Investigation Wing, Delhi and served on the investor company. The name of the company Yash IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was earlier VS IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. as per the ROC record which was subsequently changed

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT vs. M/S. RAJLAXMI INFRA, SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Rajlaxmi Infra Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Room 64, Rajlaxmi Height, Vs No.410, Aayakar Bhawan, Singanpore Cosway Road, Majura Gate, Opp. Shradhhadeep Soc, Surat-395001 Surat-395004 Pan No. Aaofr 1095 C ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

68 of the Act. There is no evidence on record to indicate that assessee has given cash to the lender. The Ld. CIT(A) by referring the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (supra) deleted the addition of Rs.75.00 lakh received from Shri Hemantbhai P Patel. For loan received from Kamdhenu Developers

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

195 (SC). where in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

195 (SC). where in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

6 of the assessment order dated passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C dated 29.12.2018 of AY 2016-17 and for AY 2017-18 under section 143(3). The ld AR for the assessee further submits that ld. PCIT stated that the AO initiated assessment proceedings at fag end of limitation, the PCIT himself exercised its power under

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

6 of the assessment order dated passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C dated 29.12.2018 of AY 2016-17 and for AY 2017-18 under section 143(3). The ld AR for the assessee further submits that ld. PCIT stated that the AO initiated assessment proceedings at fag end of limitation, the PCIT himself exercised its power under

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3) SURAT vs. MEGA COLLECTIONS PVT LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.311/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. Mega Collections Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 38-39, Kamla Estate, Gitanjali Petrol Pump, Varachha Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagcm3809C

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer observing as follows: “4.12 On perusal of facts, it is noticed that the identity of all the creditors was established

M/S. SHASHVAT JEWELS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No3364/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S. Shashvat Jewels Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax, 6/1468, Shashvat House, Circle-2(1)(2) Surat Kansara Street, Mahidharpura, Surat 395003 Pan:Aajcs 9790D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68 of the Act. The AO has ignored the notice under section 133(6) on 06.02.2015 to both parties and filing by them confirmatory letters, which are on record. The assessee has also requested the cross examination of Shri Bhanwarlal M. Jain right from beginning, but same was not allowed, on the contrary pressurized the assessee to produce

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

195 of the Finance Act, 2016 except provision of Chapter XV, Section 119, Section 138 and section 189 of the Income Tax Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessment order in accepting the contention is not erroneous or legally unsustainable. 13. On the fourth issue identified by ld PCIT, which relates

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

195 of the Finance Act, 2016 except provision of Chapter XV, Section 119, Section 138 and section 189 of the Income Tax Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessment order in accepting the contention is not erroneous or legally unsustainable. 13. On the fourth issue identified by ld PCIT, which relates

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

195 of the Finance Act, 2016 except provision of Chapter XV, Section 119, Section 138 and section 189 of the Income Tax Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessment order in accepting the contention is not erroneous or legally unsustainable. 13. On the fourth issue identified by ld PCIT, which relates

THE ITO, WARD -2(2)(2),, SURAT vs. SMT. HANSABEN BIPIINKUMAR KOTHARI,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.613/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt.Hansaben Bipinkumar Kothari, Ward-2(2)(2), Surat. 806-C, Kanaknidhi Apartment, Timliawad, Nanpura, Surat. [Pan: Adgpk 1894 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

6-11]. The AO had gone on to make the additions being not satisfied with the explanation of the appellant. The reasons given by him for treating the loans as unexplained are basically the following: 1) That Smt. Bhavna R Shah stated in a statement that she does not know the assessee and also was unaware about the loan claimed

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. M/S. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68,686/- Deleted/Allowed u/s 80IA 8. Out of commission paid to Rs. 4,20,000/- Deleted/Allowed Directors 9. Out of commission of sales Rs. 18,90,000/- Deleted/Allowed 10. Out of Misc. Expenses Rs. 1,88,95,000/- Deleted/Allowed 11. Out of Employees welfare Rs. 90,90,000/- Deleted/Allowed expenses 12. Income from deployment

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68,686/- Deleted/Allowed u/s 80IA 8. Out of commission paid to Rs. 4,20,000/- Deleted/Allowed Directors 9. Out of commission of sales Rs. 18,90,000/- Deleted/Allowed 10. Out of Misc. Expenses Rs. 1,88,95,000/- Deleted/Allowed 11. Out of Employees welfare Rs. 90,90,000/- Deleted/Allowed expenses 12. Income from deployment

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68,686/- Deleted/Allowed u/s 80IA 8. Out of commission paid to Rs. 4,20,000/- Deleted/Allowed Directors 9. Out of commission of sales Rs. 18,90,000/- Deleted/Allowed 10. Out of Misc. Expenses Rs. 1,88,95,000/- Deleted/Allowed 11. Out of Employees welfare Rs. 90,90,000/- Deleted/Allowed expenses 12. Income from deployment