DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs. 5,21,964/-. 3.2 In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue was re-examined. According to the appellate authority the appellant assessee had furnished evidence to show that the shares were brought as genuine investment which was long back

JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs. 5,21,964/-. 3.2 In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue was re-examined. According to the appellate authority the appellant assessee had furnished evidence to show that the shares were brought as genuine investment which was long back

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs. 5,21,964/-. 3.2 In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue was re-examined. According to the appellate authority the appellant assessee had furnished evidence to show that the shares were brought as genuine investment which was long back

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs. 5,21,964/-. 3.2 In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue was re-examined. According to the appellate authority the appellant assessee had furnished evidence to show that the shares were brought as genuine investment which was long back

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs.\n5,21,964/-.\n3.2 In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals), the issue was re-examined. According to the appellate authority the\nappellant assessee had furnished evidence to show that the shares were\nbrought as genuine investment which was long back

THE ITO, WARD - 3(2)(2),, SURAT vs. SHRI POPATBHAI RANCHHODBHAI BHADANI,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.585/Ahd/2016/Srt & Co. No. 63/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2011-12 1. Income Tax Officer, Vs 1. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat Bhadani, House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R Vs 2. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai 2.Income Tax Officer, Bhadani, Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit "may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year". The legislative mandate is not in terms of the words "shall be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that

ITO, WARD-3(3)(3), SURAT vs. M/S. M D HOUSE BUILD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

198 Carting/material purchase 11 K & D Carting 3,18,377/- 3,18,377 Carting/material purchase 12 Jignesh K Korat 36,11,543 36,11,543 Material with labour 13 Jai Shihori Krupa 7,85,701 7,85,701 Carting/material Carting purchase Total 2,74,57,986 2,74,57,986 3. The Assessing Officer further recorded that assessee has debited

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68 as unexplained credit amounts to double taxation of the same income. The said situation has been upheld in latest Apex Court Judgment of Montage Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 100 (SC) and other decisions. The Honorable CIT(A) has also relied on the said decisions as mentioned in last para of the Appellate order challenged by the revenue

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68 as unexplained credit amounts to double taxation of the same income. The said situation has been upheld in latest Apex Court Judgment of Montage Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 100 (SC) and other decisions. The Honorable CIT(A) has also relied on the said decisions as mentioned in last para of the Appellate order challenged by the revenue

SUPREME AUTO,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1141/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Bilimora Road, National Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari - 396521. [Pan: Aamfs 3499 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 22.10.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 22.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

68 of the Act. With regard to booking 4 Supreme Auto vs. Pr. CIT- Valsad /I.T.A.No.1141/AHD/2016/A.Y. 2011-12 advances, the assessee has given complete details and income of advance has been duly reflected in next year and only advance of Rs.8,97,889/- were returned to the customer against cancellation of booking. Further, explanation was called for which was replied

M/S. MAHAVIR FOODS PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.28/Ahd/2016:िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Mahavir Foodis Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sarvoday Building, Opp. Railway Ward-3, Navsari Station, Navsari. [Pan: Aabfd 8442 Q] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Shri Mahesh Rana, Employee Of िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By The Assessee Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. Dr राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By 13.05.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement 16.05.2019 On : आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The 1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad [In Short “The Cit(A)”], Dated 27.01.2012 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 2. That The Learned Cit[A] Has Passed Impugned Order 1. Without Following Due Process Of Laws, Legal Maxim "

section 282 of the Act. However, we find that the AO has duly disposed-off this objection in the assessment order hence, submissions are not tenable. It is further mentioned in submissions that the Tribunal has granted adjournment by hearing dated 20.04.2018 to 28.05.2018 enabling the Appellant to collect certified copies for the office

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, SURAT vs. SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

section 115BBE of the Act are attracted. 15. The main issue in the present appeal is addition of Rs.36,17,00,112/- made u/s 69 of the Act. The CIT(A) has partly allowed the issue by observing as under: “8.8 On page 6 & 7 of the assessment order, the AO has given the details of 17 transactions date

SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

section 115BBE of the Act are attracted. 15. The main issue in the present appeal is addition of Rs.36,17,00,112/- made u/s 69 of the Act. The CIT(A) has partly allowed the issue by observing as under: “8.8 On page 6 & 7 of the assessment order, the AO has given the details of 17 transactions date

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, SURAT vs. SHRI SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross appeal of\nthe assessee is partly allowed

68,256/- on account of alleged\nunexplained investments in Crypto-currency, Dekado, ATC and Bitconnect.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the\nlearned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action\nof the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.50,12,212/- on account

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

68,256/- on account of alleged\nunexplained investments in Crypto-currency, Dekado, ATC and Bitconnect.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the\nlearned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action\nof the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.50,12,212/- on account

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

68] wherein after considering the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court In the circumstances Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 332 ITR 602 (SC)/ [2011] 198 Taxman 78 (SC) which held that non-compete fees received for from refraining from carrying on business was capital receipt and non-compete fees received prior to 01.04.2003 was not taxable under section

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

68] wherein after considering the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court In the circumstances Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 332 ITR 602 (SC)/ [2011] 198 Taxman 78 (SC) which held that non-compete fees received for from refraining from carrying on business was capital receipt and non-compete fees received prior to 01.04.2003 was not taxable under section

THE ITO, WARD -1,, SURAT vs. SHREE MADHI SURALI VIBHAG NAGRIK SAHAKARI DHIRAN MANDLI LTD., SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.612/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik, Ward-1, Bardoli. Sahakari Dhiran Mandli Ltd., Madhi, Tal.Bardoli, Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aadas 5644 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Shaunak Zaveri– Ca & Shri Yogesh Gamit - Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

68 of the Act and no penalty is required to be levied. Penalty has been levied as the assessee had submitted that these are loan amount and could not prove the 'reasonable cause' for accepting and repaying the deposit or loan from/to its members Rs. 20,000/- or more otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

section 2(47) apply to capital asset only and the action of the Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed which is inconsistent to provision of the Act. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs Motilal C. Patel & Co. (1988)71 CTR 0098(Guj)  CIT vs Ashaland Corporation