RAJGREEN INFRALINK LLP,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(3), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.257 & 375/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rajgreen Infralink Llp Deputy Commissioner Of 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-1(3) Nr. Choksi Wadi, New Rander Road, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Rajgreen Infralink Llp Vs Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Room No. 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Nagar, Nr. Choksi Wadi, Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, New Rander Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395009 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

C Mehta (HUF) who given loan of Rs.5.85 lakhs having returned of income of Rs.2.36 lakhs and before giving loan received amount Rs.5.80 lakh in his bank 11 ITA Nos. 257 & 375/SRT/2023 (A.Y 18-19) Rajgreen Infralink LLP account. With respect to lenders mentioned in table-3, the ld. CIT(A) noted that those persons have paid normal

PRAMOD N. PRAJAPATI,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2457 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2456 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by the different assessees are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) Valsad both dated 03/10/2022 for the Assessment year (AY) 1998-1999. In both these appeals, the assessee

SEJAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

1) In respect of M/s Momentum Real Estate Pvt Ltd, the assessee has furnished the following evidences: (a) share application form (paper book pages 112-114) (b) Minutes of Board meeting (pb 15) (c ) Share certificate (pb 116) (d) Relevant bank statement (pb 117-118) (e) Acknowledgement of return of income (pb 119) (f) Audit report alongwith financial statement

KANAIYALAL LABHUBHAI NAROLA,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,(2), SURAT, SURAT

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

68", "271(1)(c)", "274", "143(1)", "148", "132", "131", "69A", "251(2)" ], "issues": "1. Validity of reopening of assessment under Section

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

C). Yet, in another case reported in [2011] 128 ITD 74 (Bangalore)/[2011] 136 TTJ 247 (Bangalore), IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'A1, in the case of Suresh Kumar T. Jain v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), in IT APPEAL NO. 667 (BANG.) OF 2009, [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06] .DATED: JANUARY 8, 2010 , the issue considered was:: "Section

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

C Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Anurag Dubey, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 30/09/2022 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat (in short

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

C Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Anurag Dubey, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 30/09/2022 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat (in short

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

C Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Anurag Dubey, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 30/09/2022 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat (in short

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

C Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Anurag Dubey, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 30/09/2022 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat (in short

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

C Kothari, Smt.Sangita K Shah and Shri Shashwat J Kothari are holding shares in the company 35%, 35%, 8%, 2.75%, and 4% respectively, whereas all these Directors have received equal amount of addition / additional remuneration which shows that the payment of additional remuneration has been made against made towards services rendered by them as submitted by the assessee before

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

C Kothari, Smt.Sangita K Shah and Shri Shashwat J Kothari are holding shares in the company 35%, 35%, 8%, 2.75%, and 4% respectively, whereas all these Directors have received equal amount of addition / additional remuneration which shows that the payment of additional remuneration has been made against made towards services rendered by them as submitted by the assessee before

SHRI VIMALCHAND JAIN,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result the ground No

c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. Assessee craves leave to reserve right to add to, alter or amend any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing and to produce such further evidence, documents and papers in support of claim.” 3.Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee had filed its original return

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

251 ITR 263 (SC)] 4. PCIT VS. Hi Tech Residency [2018] 96 taxmann.com 402 (SC)) 5. PCIT vs. Hi Tech Residency [2018] 93 taxmann.com 403 (Bom HC)) 6. PCIT vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt Ltd. SLP no. 12644/2018 (SC)] 7. PCITvs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt Ltd. [84 taxmann.com 58 (Bom)] 8. Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

DIPEN JAYDEEPBHAI DHIMAR,TAPI vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.131/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dipen Jaydeepbhai Dhimar, Vs. Ito, 1, Bajar Faliya, Valod, At & Po – Ward – 1, Talod, Tal – Tapi, Tapi – 394640, Bardoli Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amzpd6196K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2025

C. Suratwala, CA Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 17/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 24.01.2025, by the Commissioner of Income

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

C, Ashwini Apptt., Anmol Compound, Sumul Dairy Road, Surat ? Creative Fashions, Prop Haresh Vekaria 3465000 2023500 54,88,500 3-D, Ashwini Apptt., Sumul Dairy Road Director in R. J. Squarelink Pvt. Ltd., 4 Master Corporation, Prop. Haresh 5631100 0 56,31,100 Vekharia HUF, 39, Kamla Estate, Kohinoor Road, Varachha, Surat ITA 311/SRT/2022/AY.2013-14 Mega Collection Pvt. Ltd. The Assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. JAYANTIBHAI VIRJIBHAI BABARIYA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.297/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Income-Tax, Circle-2, Surat, Vs. K-801, River View Heights, Room No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pedar Road, Mota Varachha, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-394101 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb 0820 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,28,68,000/-, made by the AO u/s 69 of the I T Act despite the facts that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating details/document showing unaccounted land transactions carried

BSAS INFORTECH LIMITED, SURAT,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

c) of the Act for concealment of income, are also being initiated in assessee’s case separately.” 4. Further, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- being 2% of the commission paid by the assessee for obtaining accommodation entry of Rs. 50,00,000/-, as income of the assessee. 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

BSAS INFOTECH LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

c) of the Act for concealment of income, are also being initiated in assessee’s case separately.” 4. Further, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- being 2% of the commission paid by the assessee for obtaining accommodation entry of Rs. 50,00,000/-, as income of the assessee. 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed