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

SHRI SANDIP BALVANTRAI NAIK,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4, 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

6,48,96,000/- u/s 69C of the Act as alleged unexplained expenditure. 2. An addition of R. 1,28,64,175/- u/s 69C of the Act as alleged unexplained expenditure. 3. An addition of Rs. 2,76,36,691/- u/s 68 of the Act as alleged unexplained cash credit. 4. An addition

SHRI SANDIP BALVANTRAI NAIK,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4, 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

6,48,96,000/- u/s 69C of the Act as alleged unexplained expenditure. 2. An addition of R. 1,28,64,175/- u/s 69C of the Act as alleged unexplained expenditure. 3. An addition of Rs. 2,76,36,691/- u/s 68 of the Act as alleged unexplained cash credit. 4. An addition

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

6,17,250/-. 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

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

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

250 -- (2,500) profit from -- H. Vinodkumar & Co. Share of 15,342,816 52,377,254 127,816,777 6,026,185 3,442,111 (446,749) -- profit from Dhaval Jewels Share of --- --- --- --- (43,942) (14,391) (14,489) profit from KHP Jewels Dividend 41,966 --- 70,194 from public 78,089 130,932 137,208 15,554 Ltd. LTCG

SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Tulsibhai Bhagwanbhai The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Patel, Majura Gate, Surat. Vs. 9-10, Kasturba Nagar Society, Nr. Baroda Pristage, Varachha Road, Surat. Also At C/O Sh. Ashwin Parekh & Co 401-404, Rajhans Banista, Behind Ram Chowk Temple , Gdod Dhod Road, Suart E-Mail: Akparekh_1989@Yahoo.Co.In Pan : Abrpp 1239 Q Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act of Rs.1,70,000/-. 2 Shri Tulsibhai B Patel (A.Y 96-97) 3. On further appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the addition was upheld. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition in an ex parte order. Thus, further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submission

YAKUB AHMED PATEL,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-4, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Yakub Ahmed Patel Income Tax Officer A/9 Masum Park, Dungri, Ward-4, Bharuch Vs Sherpura Road, Bharuch-392 001 Patelyakub955@Gmail.Com Ph No.9173386913 Pan Adopp 9317 N Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

68 of the Act. ITA No.487/SRT/2019 A.Y. 11-12 Sh. Yakub A Patel 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue submits that before Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) assessee has not discharged his onus by filing sufficient documentary evidence to prove his case. The assessee is habitual in not making timely compliance

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

SHRI HARESHBHAI L. RUKADIA,SURAT vs. THE INOCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Hareshbhai L. Rukadia, Income Tax Officer Ward- B-203, Sagar Sartia Apt. Rang 3(2)(3), Vs. Darshan Krupa Society, Katargam, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat. Gate, Surat. Pan: Agspr 2529 K Applicant Respondent

68 of Rs.95,00,000/-. By treating the gift as unexplained cash credit. On appeal before ld. CIT(A) the action of the assessing officer was affirmed. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of 1 ITA No. 642/SRT/2018 AY 2014-15 Hareshbhai L Rukadia assessing officer in ex-parte order by taking view that despite granting several opportunity

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

MITTAL MRUDULKUMAR PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(5), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mittal Mrudulkumar Patel The Income Tax Officer, 39, Bajrang Nagar Society, Ward-3(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Nr.Sarthana Jakat Naka,Nana Anavil Business Center, Varachha, Surat-395006 Adajan,Surat-35009 Mehsana_Pipe_Syndicate@Yahoo. Com Pan : Aqtpp 7689 M Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition by taking view that the unsecured loan of Rs. 13.50 lakhs, shown by assessee is her own money, which has been received through entries. 3. Aggrieved by the addition, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order vide order dated 27.10.2021 by taking

BASANTILAL TARBA,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1)(2), BHILWARA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Basantilal Tarba Income Tax Officer 429/1023, Sunder Nagar, Ward-3(1)(2), Room Vs Ahinsa Circle, Bhilwara, No.117, Anavil Business Rajasthan-311001 Centre, Adajan Surat E-Mail: Bltarba@Gmail.Com Pan : Afipt 1037 P Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

68 while passing assessment order dated 09.12.2016. 4. On appeal before CIT(A) the action of AO in re-opening as well as both the addition were upheld. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer in ex parte order dated 28.09.2018.The Ld. CIT(A) before passing the ex parte order recorded that assessee was served three consecutive

SUCHITRA SILK MILLS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.572/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Suchitra Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 1001, Silk Plaza, Ring Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat. Surat – 395002. [Pan: Aafcs 2982 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ramesh Kumar Malpani – Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

68 of the Act was deleted. 2. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee made his submission that the grounds of appeal raised in this appeal is covered by the decision of Tribunal for A.Y. 2012-13 (supra). During the hearing, the application for hearing the appeal on out of turn basis, the Ld.AR of the assessee was confronted

OM SAI STONE LIMITED.,SURAT. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Om Sai Stone Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 6/2060/2061-A, Off No. 107, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Vedant Building, Bhojabhai Ni Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Sheri, Mahidharpura, Gate, Surat-395003 Surat. Pan : Aafcs 2403 R Applicant Respondent

68,87,7487- treated as alleged unexplained income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not provided the ample opportunities to hear the case, hence the case may please be allowed and restore back to the CIT(A), Surat