HITENDRASINH CHANDRASINH BAKROLA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

68 or Section 69 is not invokable because the deeming provisions of Section 68/69 and Section 56(2)(vii)(c) are mutually exclusive. The Department has not filed any CO against the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). It is contented that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) is not applicable because the same

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

section 68 of the Act. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. 9. CIT (A). The findings given by the CIT (A) in his appellate order is reproduced as under: “7.1 The AR submitted detailed submissions" dated 24. 06. 2015 and 28.01.2016 and also paper book containing the copies of show cause notice and details submitted

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J B SYNTEX 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.140/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2023

section 68 of the Act. Hon'ble High Court held the Tribunal has considered each and every finding recorded by the assessing officer as well as the CIT(A), Ahmedabad and it cannot be said that the points raised before the assessing officer, as well as the first appellate authority were not dealt with by the Tribunal. Since

TRIVIDH CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.86/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Trividh Corporation, Vs. The Pcit, Surat. Tp No.25, Fp No.103, Aashtha Medicare & Residency, Abrama Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahft0894N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. T. Bidari, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Grievances Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Principal Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Invoke Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act & Finally ‘Set-Aside’ Ao’S Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Also Direct The Ao To Frame The Assessment ‘Denovo’.” 2. The Relevant Material Facts, As Culled Out From The Material On Record, Are As Follows. The Assessee Before Us Is A Firm. It Has Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2015-16 On 13.10.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs. 4,42,80,220/-. The Assessee`S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Project Development Activities. The Id Assessing Assessment Years.2015-16 Trividh Corporation Officer (Herein After Referred To ‘Ao’) Finalized The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, On 11.12.2017, Accepting The Returned Income Of The Assessee.

68, section 69, section 69A, section 696, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent. Despite such facts and circumstances and specific provisions of law in section 115BBE(2) of the Act, Assessing Officer has completed assessment determining total income at Rs.4,42,80,220

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 as against unaccounted income as unaccounted income has been generated by rotating the unaccounted loan taken at Rs.12,00,000/-. Therefore, Ground No. 1 to 4 of Revenue are dismissed. Since we have upheld the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A). Therefore, the Cross Objection challenging the sustenance of addition

DY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2, SURAT vs. M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO., SURAT

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

68 employees are working and their total salary debited for the year is Rs. 31,07,326/- . On the basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions. Before us, no contrary fact or evidence or any law is brought to our notice by the ld. CIT-DR except relying on the order of Assessing Officer. Thus

M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

68 employees are working and their total salary debited for the year is Rs. 31,07,326/- . On the basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions. Before us, no contrary fact or evidence or any law is brought to our notice by the ld. CIT-DR except relying on the order of Assessing Officer. Thus

SHRI CHANDUBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI BORAD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chandubhai Parshottambhai Income Tax Officer, Borad, 162, 163, Akshardham Ward-3(3)(5), Surat, Vs Society, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Varachha Road, Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No: Ajfpb 2959 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 68 is unsustainable and that Assessing Officer has not doubted the evidence relating to the loan and not rejected the books of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) again held that assessee failed to establish creditworthiness of creditors. I find that identity was not disputed by the Assessing Officer. Considering the fact that assessee has discharged his primary onus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.2(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S GALAXI FILAMENTS, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.35/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Galaxy Filaments Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Room 13-14, Sanskruti Industrial Vs. 6Th No.612, Floor, Aayakar Estate, Nr. Diamond Rose Bhavan, Nr. Majura Gate, Surat- Nursery, Laskana, Surat-395013 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapfg 6252 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

section 68. For taxing loan creditors u/s 68, the assessee is required to prove: (a) Identity of creditor (b) Genuineness of transaction; and (c) Creditworthiness of creditor. Once an assessee has submitted the documents such as (i) PAN, (ii) income-tax returns of creditors, (iii) the details of bank accounts through and to which the loan amount has passed

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)

section 68. For taxing loan creditors u/s 68, the assessee is required to prove: (a) Identity of creditor (b) Genuineness of transaction; and (c) Creditworthiness of creditor. Once an assessee has submitted the documents such as (i) PAN, (ii) income-tax returns of creditors, (iii) the details of bank accounts through and to which the loan amount has passed

ACIT, CIR-1(3), SURAT vs. PRAVIN PANNALAL SHAH, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Pravin Pannalal Shah Lal Bunglow, Athwalines, Income-Tax, Circle-1(3, Vs. Surat-395007 Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Hajira Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrps 1045 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, which defines the gift. Therefore, as per ld CIT(A), the necessary ingredients of the valid gift would be: (1) Absence of consideration. (2) The donor (3) The donee (4) Subject-matter (5) The Transfer (6) Acceptance. It was observed by ld CIT(A) that the assessee submitted the gift declaration/copy

RAJESHBHAI D. DUNGARANI (HUF),SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the substantial ground of appeal as framed by me is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Rajeshbhai D Dungarani (Huf), I.T.O., 15-A, Sundaram Park Society, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. Dabholi Road, Surat-395004 Surat. (Gujarat) Pan No. Aakhr 4970 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

220/-. The assessee on filing return of income, requested for reasons recorded. The reasons recoded were provided to the assessee on 24/07/2018. The Assessing Officer after serving notice under Section 143(2) of the Act proceeded for assessment. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee that the assessee has shown to have earned

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. HASMUKHBHAI RAVJIBHAI AHIR, SURAT

In the result, the ground Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.298/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Hasmukhbhai Ravjibhai Ahir, Central Circle-3, U/3, Amrutdhara Apartment, Ghod Dod Surat. Road, Opp. St. Xeviers School, Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkpa5575D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri Ankur Shah, Ca Respondent By 08/08/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/10/2023

section 68 of the Act. 4. Brief facts, as discernible from the orders of lower authorities are that assessee before us is an Individual and has filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 20.07.2017, declaring total income of Rs.4,13,42,220/-. The notice u/s 143(2

SOFIA TWIST AND TEXT PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sofia Twist & Text Pvt Ltd, Dcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) 3003, Rathi Palace, Kamela Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Darwaja, Ring Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Majurgate, Surat - 395002 Surat - 395002 Pan No. Aadcs4384F Appellant Respondent

section 151. 2. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.3,69,220/- u/s 68

LATE MANISHBHAI NAGINDAS GAJJAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1335/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2011-12 Late Manishbhai Nagindas Gajjar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through L/H Illaben Manishbhai Ward- 6(3) Surat Gajjar, 316Kh Luhar Mohhallo , Palgam, Chaurasi Surat 359009 Pan: Aovpg 1860K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68,10,000. The assessee was having 1/6th share in the said property which worked out to Rs.61,34,998/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that while working out taxable long- term capital gain, the assessee has claimed index cost of acquisition at Rs.43,64,829/- on the basis of value of land taken as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.6

KISHORKUMAR DHIRAJLAL KATHROTIYA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, , SURAT

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

220 (SC). 6.5. The Ld AO has made the addition u/s.68 of the Act for alleged on money receipts determined on the basis of the sauda chitthi. In fact, Section 68 is applicable only when the credit entry appears in the books of accounts of the assessee. So, assessing officer has invoked wrong provision of IT Act. 6.6. Even

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 SURAT, SURAT vs. KISHORKUMAR DHIRAJLAL KATHROTIYA, SURAT

Accordingly, Ground No.12 is partly allowed

220 (SC). 6.5. The Ld AO has made the addition u/s.68 of the Act for alleged on money receipts determined on the basis of the sauda chitthi. In fact, Section 68 is applicable only when the credit entry appears in the books of accounts of the assessee. So, assessing officer has invoked wrong provision of IT Act. 6.6. Even