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.

211 Taxman 61/25 taxmann.com 227, Filatex India Ltd. (supra) decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Canara Housing Development Company (supra) as well as the other decisions, held thus: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned

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 68 of the I.T. Act. 2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on fact to confirm assessing officer’s addition of Rs.98,037/- u/s 69 of the Act without there being any ITA No.73/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar proof of payment of commission @ 2% of LTCG made by the assessee as per para 15 of assessment

SHIVAM RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,VALSAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shivam Residential Construction Principal Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Civil Income-Tax-Valsad, Palak Vs. Hospital Road, Nanakwada, Valsad Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapcs 3137 G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-D.R

68 including the loan confirmation and copy of bank statement of the lenders. However, the perusal of the assessee’s reply filed vide letter dated 12.02.2016 shows that the assessee has filed invalid loan confirmations as the same do not contain the bank account number of the lenders. The AO has not bothered to examine the validity of loan confirmations

KALUBHAI DULABHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , SURAT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

211 of PB). d. Intention at the time of acquisition of land is more important than subsequent non utilization of said land, e. The Assessee was aware of the various problems and difficulties which lay ahead and hence, it cannot be accepted that the said land was not developable 8. Before the CIT (A), the Assessee made detailed submissions which

S N TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-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.77/Srt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1St Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs0060R

211(SC) It has been held by Honourable Supreme Court that "Retrospective operation of law should not be given so as to effect, alter or destroy an existing right and to create new liability or obligation. New liability cannot be created by a subsequent amendment in respect of a transaction when such law was not in the Statute book

ARVINDBHAI RAMNIKLAL RAVAL HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Arvindbhai Ramniklal Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ (Huf)308, Chhapania Street, 1(3)(6), Surat, Room No.303, 3Rd Vs. Adajan, Surat-395 009 Floor, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeha 1847 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

68,720/- as against returned income of Rs.2,28,680/-. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3. Before CIT(A), the appellant submitted that appellant had duly invested Rs.1,59,40,044/- u/s 54F of the Act in purchase of new residential house within the time limit prescribed in the Act. The appellant

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

68,50,00 and 2). Dow Agro Science Rs.3,63,85,440 totaling to Rs. 8,50,70,440. The 80% of the amount received by the assessee company from the Dow Agro Science was considered as receipts for undertaking non-compete obligation not eligible to tax has been considered as business receipts arising from manufacturing pesticides and as royalty

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

68,50,00 and 2). Dow Agro Science Rs.3,63,85,440 totaling to Rs. 8,50,70,440. The 80% of the amount received by the assessee company from the Dow Agro Science was considered as receipts for undertaking non-compete obligation not eligible to tax has been considered as business receipts arising from manufacturing pesticides and as royalty

SHAKTI DEVELOPERS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

211 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ADEFS 0044 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant by Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 30/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This

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. SUN DIAM,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 132(4) was obtained by coercion or intimidation lies upon assessee. Proof of threat or coercion is necessary for valid retraction. The Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Anoop Y. Jain, Manish S Jain, Sun Diam, Sachin R Parekh allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed by the search team and was forced to make an admission

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY HUF,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-4,, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 132(4) was obtained by coercion or intimidation lies upon assessee. Proof of threat or coercion is necessary for valid retraction. The Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Anoop Y. Jain, Manish S Jain, Sun Diam, Sachin R Parekh allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed by the search team and was forced to make an admission

M/S. NAZAR IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-4,, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 132(4) was obtained by coercion or intimidation lies upon assessee. Proof of threat or coercion is necessary for valid retraction. The Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Anoop Y. Jain, Manish S Jain, Sun Diam, Sachin R Parekh allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed by the search team and was forced to make an admission

SACHIN PAREEK,SURAT vs. DCIT (CENTREL) CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 132(4) was obtained by coercion or intimidation lies upon assessee. Proof of threat or coercion is necessary for valid retraction. The Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Anoop Y. Jain, Manish S Jain, Sun Diam, Sachin R Parekh allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed by the search team and was forced to make an admission

BHARATKUMAR RANCHODBHAI SONI,NA vs. ARIVS.PCIT, VALSAD

section 263 of the Act. 4. The Id. PCIT considered the submission of the assessee and held that the order passed by the AO on 30.12.2019 was without making any independent inquiry on the purchaser parties whose names were reflected in the sale bills but proper addresses were not given. The assessee also did not give reasons or details

NAVINBHAI RATILAL IDRIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

68,877/-. As the assessee has not filed regular Return of Income, the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 12-06-2021. Pursuant to the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] SCC online 543) after giving opportunity to the assessee u/s 148A(b) and order u/s 148A

MANOJJ GANESHLAL BHATIA, SURAT vs. ACIT, CIR 1(3), 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.494/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Manojj Ganeshlal Bhatia Income-Tax, Circle-1[3], Room B-703, Opera House Building, Vs. 3Rd No.301, Floor, Anavil Nr. Agarsen Bhavan, City Light Business Centre, Adajan-Hazira Road, Surat-395007 Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpb 9748 E (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mehul K.Patel, Advocate राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [Ld. Cit(A) For Short] Dated 28.08.2019 Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 29.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “1) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,97,77,965/- Made On Account Of Profit From Future & Options Ignoring That Assessee Has Failed To Tender Evidence & Explanation In This Regard? 2) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,60,54,528/- Made On Account Of Unexplained Increase In Capital Holding That The Capital Accumulation Is Fully Explained On The Basis Of Capital In The Itr Of A.Y 2011-12 & Accumulated Income In The Roi For A.Y 2012-13 To A.Y 2014-15 Ignoring That Assessee Has Shown Nil Capital Balance In Itr Filed For A.Y 2014-15?

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] dated 29.12.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,97,77,965/- made on account