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

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

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10(38) of the Act to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7.2 In light of the above decisions, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and in facts in allowing the assessee's appeal. " 8. It is appropriate to place on record

MAGANLAL HARICHAND SONI,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD ONE BARODOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Maganlal Harichand Soni, I.T.O., Main Bazar, Zankhwav, Ward-1, Vs. Surat-394440. Bardoli. Pan No. Bkcps 6931 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 particularly when the return of income has been filed under section 44AD and treating the Maganlal Harichand Soni Vs ITO bank statement as “books of accounts”. Therefore, the impugned addition deserves to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. (3) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned assessing officer has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, SURAT vs. M/S V SQUARE PROJECT, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.75/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- M/S V Square Project Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat, 206, 2Nd Floor, Shanti Vs Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Arcade, 132Ft Ring Road, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Ahmedabad-380013 395001 Pan No. Aaifv 1955 B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

206, 2nd Floor, Shanti Vs Room No. 507, 5th Floor, Aaykar Arcade, 132FT Ring Road, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Ahmedabad-380013 395001 PAN No. AAIFV 1955 B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Urvashi Shodhan Advocate & Parin Shah, C.A राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Airiju Jaikaran

THE ITO, WARD-1,, NA vs. ARIVS.SHRI ANILKUMAR AMRUTLAL CHAHWALA, NAVSARI

In the result, this ground of appeal is rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2078/Ahd/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1003/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Amrutlal Chahwala, Ward-(1), Navsari. 102, Trimurti Complex, Vijalpore, Navsari. [Pan: Abnpc 6308 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

68,29,000/- by Padmavati Gems to 187 Labour Contractor and Rs. 3,60,57,206/- by Parth Corporation to 258 Labour Contractor. Thus, the assessing officer disallowed Rs. 5,28,86,206/-on account of labour expenses. The assessing officer rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section

SHRI SUDEEP MAHENDRABHAI SHAH,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(3)(5),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

68 on account of loans received by the assessee. The ld. Sr. DR further submitted that it would be seen whether there was prima-facie material to form belief as held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC), the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD vs. M/S. MANGALDEEP, VALSAD

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

68, 69,69A,69B, 69C." 7.However, the Assessing Officer has rejected the contention of the assessee and held that since the excess stock was declared on the basis of difference in physical stock as per books of accounts which was not recorded in its regular books of accounts and the assessee was very well aware that as the above stock

ITO, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

206/- totaling to the tune of Rs.28,68,83,424/- which were Shri Gautarn Jain & group concerns without ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others actually getting the material. Thus, the bill issued by the said group concern is nothing but accommodation entry. Hence, the accommodation entry received from totaling to the tune

PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA PROP. OF DEEKSHA TRADING ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), , SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

206/- totaling to the tune of Rs.28,68,83,424/- which were Shri Gautarn Jain & group concerns without ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others actually getting the material. Thus, the bill issued by the said group concern is nothing but accommodation entry. Hence, the accommodation entry received from totaling to the tune

VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR PROP. OF ADITI EXPORTS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

206/- totaling to the tune of Rs.28,68,83,424/- which were Shri Gautarn Jain & group concerns without ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others actually getting the material. Thus, the bill issued by the said group concern is nothing but accommodation entry. Hence, the accommodation entry received from totaling to the tune

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

206/- totaling to the tune of Rs.28,68,83,424/- which were Shri Gautarn Jain & group concerns without ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others actually getting the material. Thus, the bill issued by the said group concern is nothing but accommodation entry. Hence, the accommodation entry received from totaling to the tune

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

206/- totaling to the tune of Rs.28,68,83,424/- which were Shri Gautarn Jain & group concerns without ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others actually getting the material. Thus, the bill issued by the said group concern is nothing but accommodation entry. Hence, the accommodation entry received from totaling to the tune

SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA PROP. OF BRIGHT DIAMONDS,SURATY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

206/- totaling to the tune of Rs.28,68,83,424/- which were Shri Gautarn Jain & group concerns without ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others actually getting the material. Thus, the bill issued by the said group concern is nothing but accommodation entry. Hence, the accommodation entry received from totaling to the tune

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

206/- totaling to the tune of Rs.28,68,83,424/- which were Shri Gautarn Jain & group concerns without ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others actually getting the material. Thus, the bill issued by the said group concern is nothing but accommodation entry. Hence, the accommodation entry received from totaling to the tune

MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI PROP. SHRUSHTI ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, - 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

206/- totaling to the tune of Rs.28,68,83,424/- which were Shri Gautarn Jain & group concerns without ITA Nos. 48, 62, 65 & 66/SRT/2019 &167 to 170/SRT/2021/AY.2013-14 Sonu Dharmichand Bafna & Others actually getting the material. Thus, the bill issued by the said group concern is nothing but accommodation entry. Hence, the accommodation entry received from totaling to the tune

THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VAPI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

206 (Gujarat),  Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT, Karnal v/s. Om Overseas [2008] 173 Taxman 185 (Punjab & Haryana),  Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s. Kashiram Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 160 TAXMAN 4 (GUJ). NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 25. In alternative submissions the ld. Senior counsel submits that