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

250/-. The assessee filed reply and after taking cognizance of the said reply, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 13,60,500/- in respect of unexplained cash deposit being unexplained income u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 62,97,975/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68

KRUNALBHAI ASHOKBHAI GANDHI,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

sections": [ "69A", "250", "68" ], "issues": "Whether the addition made under Section 69A for unexplained advances is sustainable when

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. VALENCIA CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) A.C.I.T. M/S Valencia Corporation, Central Circle-4, S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu-Rundh Vs. Surat. Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant Respondednt C.O. No. 17/Srt/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 257/Srt/2022)(Ay: 2016-17) M/S Valencia Corporation, A.C.I.T. S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu- Central Circle-4, Vs. Rundh Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Surat. Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant/Objector Respondednt

250(5). 4. In addition and alternative to cross objection No. 1, 2, & 3, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts that entire amount of Rs. 2,56,70,912/- pertains to works contractor(i.e. Konark Infratech) and TDS was deducted in concern

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3) SURAT vs. MEGA COLLECTIONS 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.311/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. Mega Collections Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 38-39, Kamla Estate, Gitanjali Petrol Pump, Varachha Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagcm3809C

68 of the Act for unexplained Share capital + Share Premium and unsecured loan as the decision of the Hon'ble 1TAT, Surat in assessee's own case on similar issue for the A.Y 2012-13 has not been accepted by the department and further appeal have been filed before the Hon'ble High Court where decision is pending

RAMESHKUMAR KARSANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(5), SURAT

Accordingly the estimated addition made of Rs.35,166/-[0.5% of 70,33,182/-] by the AC invoking provision of section 69C of the I.T Act stand deleted. Thus this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short) for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- “1. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. Delhi has erred in law and on fact to upheld AO's disallowance

MAHENDRA DALPATBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Mahendra Dalpatbhai Patel, I.T.O., 183, Patel Faliyu Limodra Village, Ward-1, Vs. Mangrol, Surat-394110. Bardoli. Pan No. Axlpp 1949 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 on account of unexplained cash credit. The case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information at ITS data about depositing/cash credit in his bank account. Even before ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not furnish such details. The ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without discussing the merit of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 111, SURAT vs. MUKESH ARJANBHAI MANIYA, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Mukesh Arjanbhai Maniya बनाम/ Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), C-303, Afil Tower, L.H. Road, Vs. Surat, Room No.108, 1St Varachha, Surat-395 006 Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afepm 7227 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

68 of the Act w.r.t. unsecured loans. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has violated the principles of natural justice while admitting the additional evidences and not providing opportunity of being heard to the AO as per the provisions of section 250

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 10.01.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/ Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Act dated

D K MEHTA (HUF),UMBERGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, VAPI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Kaushikbhai Jitendrabhai Patel, I.T.O.,Ward 1(4), Amin Falia, Zadeshwar, Bharuch. Vs. Bharuch-392011. Pan No. Axlpp 0562 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.K. Mehta (Huf), I.T.O.,Ward-2, 11, At Post Solsumba, Gangadevi Vapi. Vs. Road, Umbergaon Road, Umbergaon-396165, Gujarat. Pan No. Aagdh 4494 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 28,00,000/- by treating the unsecured loans received during the year by invoking provisions of Section 68

KAUSHIKBHAI JITENDRABHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Kaushikbhai Jitendrabhai Patel, I.T.O.,Ward 1(4), Amin Falia, Zadeshwar, Bharuch. Vs. Bharuch-392011. Pan No. Axlpp 0562 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.K. Mehta (Huf), I.T.O.,Ward-2, 11, At Post Solsumba, Gangadevi Vapi. Vs. Road, Umbergaon Road, Umbergaon-396165, Gujarat. Pan No. Aagdh 4494 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 28,00,000/- by treating the unsecured loans received during the year by invoking provisions of Section 68

SHRI JITENDRASINH BHARATSINH CHAUHAN,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD-SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 250(6) the I.T. Act.\n2.\nLd. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts to confirm A.O.'s\naddition u/s 68

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

ITEC MEASURES PRIVATE LIMITED,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1250/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Itec Measures Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Plot No.397-398, Silvassa Road, Ward - 3, Gidc, Gujarat - 396195 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcp8921K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushbu Bagrecha, Ca Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 12.11.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “The Ld. AO has not considered various proof regarding source

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 of the Act, the addition is unlawful and may be deleted. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not considered (dealt upon) the submission made by assessee regarding source of cash found at Mumbai Central Railway station. The assessee claimed that the cash found belonged

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 of the Act, the addition is unlawful and may be deleted. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not considered (dealt upon) the submission made by assessee regarding source of cash found at Mumbai Central Railway station. The assessee claimed that the cash found belonged

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. SURENDRAN NANOO, KERALA

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.821/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 12.06.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre ITA No.821/Srt/2024 & CO 25/SRT/2024 A.Y 17-18 Surendran Nanoo (NFAC), Delhi / Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer

A. K. BUILDERS,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) A.K. Builders, I.T.O., Jay Apartment, Kathiria, Nani Daman Ward, Vs. Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut)- Daman. 396210. Pan No. Aamfa 7826 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has a good case on merit and likely to succeed if the assessee is to be heard and the appeal is to be decided on merit. The ld AR for the assessee submits that even the facts mentioned

SHAUKATALI TAJUMAL HUSSAIN,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD. 3(2)(5), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68.” 8. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of AIR information. Notice under Section 148 dated 29/03/2016 was served upon the assessee. The case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee had deposited a cash

SHAUKATALI TAJUMAL HUSAIN,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(5),, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68.” 8. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of AIR information. Notice under Section 148 dated 29/03/2016 was served upon the assessee. The case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee had deposited a cash