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)

68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has restricted the addition at @ 5% of unverifiable purchases observing as follows: “8.8 In interest of principles of uniformity and consistency the same decision is taken in the instant appeal. The AR has also raised this

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

DEVNGI JEWELLWERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Mmber आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Devngi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 109 -110, Shreyas Diamond Centre, Circle – 1(1)(1), Mini Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd3227A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

section 68 are satisfied. The labour charges were also minimal. The CIT(A) relied on the decisions in cases of Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi vs. ACIT, 171 taxmann.com 178 (Surat – Trib.) and Vaishnavi Bullion (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 145 taxmann.com 197

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

FARHA S. KADRI,BILIMORA vs. ITO, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, the original ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Farha S Kadri, I.T.O. 762, Bazar Street, Bunder Road, Ward-2, Vs. Bilimora (Gujarat)-396321 Navsari. Pan No. Annpk 8150 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 SIT 197 (Del). To support her various submissions, the assessee relied on certain case laws. The assessee also reiterated that the assessee belongs to an agriculturist family, copy of land holdings were produced before the Assessing Officer, the husband of assessee is having land of 2.35-75 (hector). The Sarpanch of gram panchayat has issued a certificate of income

VIRAL LAVJIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.450/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Viral Lavjibhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-18, Naginawadi Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat, Aaykar Sumul Dairy Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. Surat – 395004. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alvpp2897E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2023

68 SOT 197 and Mahavir Parsad v ITO- ITA N0.924/Del/2015 dated 09.10.2017.The ld Counsel also stated that Assessing Officer was not having sufficient material to form the "reason to believe" at the time of re-opening of the assessment, therefore, reopening of assessment may be quashed. 10. On merit, ld Counsel submitted that assessee`s nature of business is cheque

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)

197-198), vi) Sample copy of work order (pb page 199),vii) Registration documents of P. Tax Act &VAT Act (pb 200-202) and viii) Statement recorded u/s 131 (pb pages 203-204). 11. By submitting these plethora documents and evidences, the assessee-company claims that it has satisfied the three ingredients of section 68

MAHESH DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.281/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Mahesh Dyeing & Printing Mills Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(1), 104, 105, 107 Shivanand Nagar Surat Ind. Estate, Village – Tati Thaiya, Surat – 394221, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcm9282E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025

section 68 of the Act because the assessee has not discharged the onus of proof regarding identity and creditworthiness of investors and genuineness of transactions. The assessee submitted detailed reply on 15.12.2016 along with copies of earlier submissions dated 10.10.2016 and 13.12.2016 to prove the genuineness of the share capital and premium received and credited in the books

AKLAVYA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.93/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Aklavya Industries Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, Ward1(1)(1), Plot No.2429, Road No. 24, Surat. Opp: Parle Bottling Plant, Gidc, Sachin, Surat - 394230 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagcs6274F

section 14B of the EPF Act. Therefore, for any delay in payment of any contributions or administrative charges due for any period during the lockdown, no proceeding should be initiated for levy of penal damages in such cases.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10/01/2022 (Copy enclosed at page no. 57 of PB) had stated – “In March

LATE SHRI BHIMSEN DARBARILAL ARORA,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, SURAT

In the result, ground no.4 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Through, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, L/H. Rajat Bhimsen Arora, Surat. Smt. Mamta Bhimsen Arora, A-201, Madhulika Apartment, Bhatar Road, Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acaps9230L

68 of the Act and hence, not justified. (5) Both the lower authorities have grievously erred in not properly appreciating the entire correspondences made in the course of assessment proceedings/appellate proceedings, already been supplied with the appeal memo forming part of the statement of facts including cogent explanations and submissions made in writing by the appellant on various dates along

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

197 for lower deduction or nil deduction is submitted no liability can be fastened on them. The Ld. CIT(A) also in other / 5th category of cases held wherein more than basic exemption limit and the payees have furnished more than one Form 15-G / 15-H and due to some lacunae in software of the assessee-bank, the system

BANK OF INDIA,SURAT vs. ITO (TDS-1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

197 for lower deduction or nil deduction is submitted no liability can be fastened on them. The Ld. CIT(A) also in other / 5th category of cases held wherein more than basic exemption limit and the payees have furnished more than one Form 15-G / 15-H and due to some lacunae in software of the assessee-bank, the system

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

197 for lower deduction or nil deduction is submitted no liability can be fastened on them. The Ld. CIT(A) also in other / 5th category of cases held wherein more than basic exemption limit and the payees have furnished more than one Form 15-G / 15-H and due to some lacunae in software of the assessee-bank, the system

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

197 for lower deduction or nil deduction is submitted no liability can be fastened on them. The Ld. CIT(A) also in other / 5th category of cases held wherein more than basic exemption limit and the payees have furnished more than one Form 15-G / 15-H and due to some lacunae in software of the assessee-bank, the system

ANJANI INFRA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Anjani Infra Dy. Commissioner Of Block No. 142, Fp No.47, T.P. Income Tax, Vs Scheme No. 27, Shangrila Central Circle-2, Heights, Moje Villge, Kosad, Surat-395001 Pan : Aawfa 0376 M Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

section 68 and disallowed the professional fees. On further appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. Thus, further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before us. 3. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) represent assessee and Ld. Departmental Representative

MARUTI DEVELOPERS,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes for the assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1017 & 1018/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2001-02 & 2002-03 Maruti Developers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 142, Keshav Park Society, Ward-9(3), Surat. Ved Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Aalfm 5747 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.P.Nanavatya – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar – Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2018 16.11.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat(In Short “The Cit (A)”) Both Dated 14.12.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Years 2001-02 & 2002-03 Respectively Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-

section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961?” 8. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration only on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal was justified in making Maruti Developers Vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Surat. /ITA No’s.1017 & 1018/Ahd/2015/SRT/AY: 2001-02 & 02-03 Page 9 of 13 addition

MARUTI DEVELOPERS,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes for the assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1017 & 1018/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2001-02 & 2002-03 Maruti Developers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 142, Keshav Park Society, Ward-9(3), Surat. Ved Road, Surat – 395 004. [Pan: Aalfm 5747 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.P.Nanavatya – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar – Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2018 16.11.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat(In Short “The Cit (A)”) Both Dated 14.12.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Years 2001-02 & 2002-03 Respectively Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-

section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961?” 8. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration only on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal was justified in making Maruti Developers Vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Surat. /ITA No’s.1017 & 1018/Ahd/2015/SRT/AY: 2001-02 & 02-03 Page 9 of 13 addition

BHIKHUBHAI KESHAVBHAI MISTRY,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhikhubhai Keshavbhai Mistry, I.T.O., 1, Kabirgam, Valiya, Ankleshwar, Ward-1(5), Vs. Bharuch, Gujarat-393135. Bharuch. Pan No. Apnpm 1810 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 148 of the Act. Entire cash deposit cannot be income of assessee as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Indo Arab Air Services (2016) 283 CTR 92 (Delhi). The assessee also relied on decision of Delhi Tribunal in Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali in ITA No. 3814/Del/2011 68