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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo (Physical Court Hearing) 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat City, Surat-395 002 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलार्थी/Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 882/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Sunita Jajoo 429-432, Golden Point, Near Bsnl Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 [Pan: Aampj 0040 K] बनाम Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Richa Toshniwal. Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23.01.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeals By Separate Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As "Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2024 & 21.04.2023 For Same

68 of the I.T. Act,1961 without acknowledging the submission of the assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of Assessing Office in making addition of Rs.3,406/- as unexplained expenditure

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(4), SURAT vs. M/S. MANSI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. M/S. Mansi Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat. Block No.80, Village. Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm6514M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/07/2022 29/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

section 68 regarding the genuineness of the transaction, stands fully satisfied by the assessee. 18. About the third condition regarding the creditworthiness of the depositors, the ld CIT(A) noted that assessing officer was mainly dissatisfied with regard to creditworthiness of the depositors quo their source of income and capital of the Lender. The assessing officer has treated

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

68 therefore, the disallowance of consequence interests is also affirm. This ground No.6 of Revenue is dismissed. 16. In the result, Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS)A No.01/SRT/2021 is dismissed. IT(SS)A No.09/SRT/2020 (for A.Y.2014-15) 17. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

PARESHBHAI NATVARLAL SHAH,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1007/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshbhai Natvarlal Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ 6-B, Sainath Society, Moroli Navsari-396 445 Vs. Bazar, Navsari-396 436 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adfps 0044 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Patel, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025

section 115BBE at 60%, which appears unjustified and excessive due to the absence of a proper finding regarding the ‘unexplained’ nature of the money. 5. The initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is premature and unjustified since no penalty order has been passed. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds

SAMIR YOGENDRABHAI PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 by treating the same as unexplained sum. The assessee filed his reply dated 25/03/2022. Copy of reply is placed on record in page No. 354 to 371 of the paper book. The ld. Pr.CIT thereafter directed to carry out de novo assessment without specifying as to how the order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

68 to 69 of the act. The ld. PCIT also noted that the assessee in addition to on money must have generated some profit from allotment of plots to customers. On the various observation made by ld. PCIT, the ld AR for the assessee submits that assessee has duly accounted each and every entry of the impounded materials and prepared

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

68 to 69 of the act. The ld. PCIT also noted that the assessee in addition to on money must have generated some profit from allotment of plots to customers. On the various observation made by ld. PCIT, the ld AR for the assessee submits that assessee has duly accounted each and every entry of the impounded materials and prepared

M/S KAMAL RAYON PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The Grounds raised by the assessee are as under : “1) Ground No.1 states that the learned CIT(A) has erred in circumstances of the case by confirming addition of Rs.1,44,15,000/- u/s. 68 without considering the submission in spite of the fact that

NEELU MAHANSARIA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.197/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Neelu Mahansaria Income Tax Officer, 304, Green Park Apartment, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat Vs City Light Road, Nr. Corner Point Complex, Surat-395007 Pan No: Adbpm 2707 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition on account of commission payment @ 2% of LTCG thereby made further addition of Rs. 30,190/- while passing the assessment order on 28.12.2016. 4. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed detailed written submission. The NFAC

M/S. SHUBH ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, , SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.317/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Shubh Enterprise Principal Commissioner Of Income V Tp Scheme No.14, Plot No.42, Opp. Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Recent Residency, Pal Village, Surat Gate, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 6271 K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

68 / 69 etc. & therefore, provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted. Consequently, partners salary and interest expenditure being directly related to earning of above income, the same is legitimately allowable as business expenditure. In support of above contention reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncements: …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4. It is also pertinent to mention that during assessment proceedings

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68,86,710 5,42,27,490 43,74,79,184 Net Receipts from Land Plotting Expenses Land & Development Expenses 22,87,55,972 10,40,04,790 4,66,26,440 37,93,87,202 Administrative & Indirect Expenses 74,36,218 87,53,772 1,69,27,244 3,31,17,234 Total Expenses

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68,86,710 5,42,27,490 43,74,79,184 Net Receipts from Land Plotting Expenses Land & Development Expenses 22,87,55,972 10,40,04,790 4,66,26,440 37,93,87,202 Administrative & Indirect Expenses 74,36,218 87,53,772 1,69,27,244 3,31,17,234 Total Expenses

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68,86,710 5,42,27,490 43,74,79,184 Net Receipts from Land Plotting Expenses Land & Development Expenses 22,87,55,972 10,40,04,790 4,66,26,440 37,93,87,202 Administrative & Indirect Expenses 74,36,218 87,53,772 1,69,27,244 3,31,17,234 Total Expenses

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

68 of the Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that it is a well settled law that penalty cannot be imposed in case additions have been made on an estimated basis. While passing the order, Ld. CIT(A) made the following observations: “While passing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

68 of the Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that it is a well settled law that penalty cannot be imposed in case additions have been made on an estimated basis. While passing the order, Ld. CIT(A) made the following observations: “While passing

LABDHI JEWELLERD PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

221 ITR 155 (Guj)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymears 341 ITR 537 (Del)  CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products 333 ITR 547 (Del) 9. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that if two views are possible, revision under section

K. N. DIAMOND,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

221 ITR 155 (Guj)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymears 341 ITR 537 (Del)  CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products 333 ITR 547 (Del) 9. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that if two views are possible, revision under section

M/S. WHITE WILLOW,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(5), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.370/Srt/2022 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S White Willow Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Surat, Vishram Apartment, Opp. Vs Anavil Business Centre, Sawlani Estate Bungalows, Pal Hazira Road, Adajan, Beside Trinidhi Apartment, Surat-395007 Ghod Dod Road, Regent Mall, Surat-395007 Pan No. Aabfw 4804 F ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

68 of the Act by treating the unsecured loan as accommodation entry and also disallowed consequential interest payment against such loans. The addition was confirmed by ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee furnished complete details of lenders which consists of details PAN, their acknowledgement of ITR, confirmation of lender, bank statement of lender

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, ADAJAN, SURAT vs. SHRI ASFAQ HAJIYUNUS NOORANI, RANDER

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.716/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Circle – 1(3), 1, Abdullah Park, Gorat Road, Surat Rander, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopn6148A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

section 68 of the Act and has relied on various decisions, i.e., Sumati Dayal, 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd., 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), K. M. Sadhukhan & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 239 ITR 77 (Cal.), CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (Orissa), CIT vs. Kishorilal & Santhoshilal