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)

Section 68 of the Act to prove the genuineness of cash credits received by the assessee. Before us the assessee-company has submitted in respect of each share applicants, the following details and documents to prove the Identity, Creditworthiness and Genuineness of Transactions, which are given below: (1) In respect of M/s Momentum Real Estate Pvt Ltd, the assessee

CHIRAGBHAI S. GADHIYA,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 68 of the Act. Thus, impliedly accepted the submission of assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that books of assessee cannot be rejected when debtors could not be traced. The assessee made sales to the impugned debtors in A.Y. 2015- 16 and the amount was reflected in sundry creditors in the audited balance sheet

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. It is recorded that "There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels." The above noted factors, including

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. Ground No. [iii] relates to deleting the addition of Rs.71,29,433/- on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 69. Brief facts for adjudication of this ground of appeal are that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to assessee for disallowance for expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, which does

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)

260. It has been held by Apex Court that: "....The fact that the capital gains are connected within the capital assets of the business cannot make them the profit of the business. They are only deemed to be income of the previous year and not the profits or gains rising from the business during that year". g. The stand

M/S. SHASHVAT JEWELS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No3364/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S. Shashvat Jewels Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax, 6/1468, Shashvat House, Circle-2(1)(2) Surat Kansara Street, Mahidharpura, Surat 395003 Pan:Aajcs 9790D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 68 of the Act. 5. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). It was submitted before CIT (A) that copies of purchase invoices of Rs. 21,07,260

MONARCH CORPORATION,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.725/Srt/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Monarch Corporation Deputy Commissioner Of Income- बनाम/ F.P. 40, T.P. 10, Beside Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat/Assistant Vs. Kalpvrukh Garden, Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gauravpath Pal, Surat-394230 Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Aayakar Bhawan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazfm 1036 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Hiren M. Diwan, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025

Section 68 are not attracted because assessee had offered the impugned amount for taxation. The assessee relied on the decisions in the following cases: (i) PCIT vs. Swapna Enterprise (2018) 91 taxmann.com 12 (Guj), (ii) CIT vs. Sudhir Jain (2014) 41 taxmann.com 234 (Del), (iii) CIT vs. Sidh Nath Goel (2013) 38 taxmann.com 260

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

260(6). 2. Prayer. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A) may be directed to hear the appeal on merits. 2.2 Personal hearing may be granted. 2.3 Any other relief that your honours may deem fit may be granted. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, modify alter or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI MAHESHBHAI V. SAVANI, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 305/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. Maheshbhai V. Savani, Surat. 404, Super Diamond Market, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhps 2681 R (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 382/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Maheshbhai V. Savani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), 404, Super Diamond Market, Varachha Surat. Road, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhps 2681 R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr Date Of Hearing 17/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022

section 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. Learned DR for the Revenue pleads that CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts that during the assessment

BALDEVBHAI VITHHAKBHAI PATEL,PARDI vs. ITO, WARD 1, VAPI

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

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit\nfor condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been\nstated that the notices by the CIT(A) were sent on wrong e-mail id on\n'agriculturepardi@gmail.com' instead of ‘rrassociatesvapi@gmail.com'\n(mentioned in Form 35). After receiving a phone call from

SANJAY SIVABHAGWAN KEYAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal Ito, Ward – 2(3)(4), Flat No.304, 3Rd Floor, Room No.613, Vatika Township, Near Model, Vs. Aaaykar Bhavan, Township, Parvat Patia Majura Gate, Surat - 395010. Surat - 395002. Pan No. Adspk 6097N Appellant Respondent

260/ on 29.03.2010 for A.Y. 2009- 10. The appellant is engaged in the business of textile trading during the 10. The appellant is engaged in the business of textile trading during the 10. The appellant is engaged in the business of textile trading during the year under consideration. The Ld. AO has erred in only considering the year under consideration

FARHA S. KADRI,BILIMORA vs. ITO, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, the original ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Farha S Kadri, I.T.O. 762, Bazar Street, Bunder Road, Ward-2, Vs. Bilimora (Gujarat)-396321 Navsari. Pan No. Annpk 8150 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

260/-. The assessee furnished record of agriculture holding in the form No. 7/12 and 8A, and vouchers of sales of mangos. The assessee also furnished cash flow statement. The assesse also submitted that she received gift from her relative to finance the education of her daughter in law in abroad. To substantiate such fact, copy of demand draft of fees

BALDEVRAJ JAMMURAM AHUJA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.178/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Baldevraj Jamnuram Ahuja, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(2)(1), Shop No.B/4073, Millenium Tex Surat. Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazpa7998J (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Rushi Parekh, Ar Revenue By : Ms Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/05/2022

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. The assessee has also paid an interest amount of Rs.1,067/- on the above referred loan amount. The same was also disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ATIN EXPORTS LLP, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Atin Exports Llp, Ward 2(3)(7), 4Th Floor, Shashvat Apartmental, Vs. Surat. Pipala Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. Pan No. Abbfa 6184 F Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

260/- whereas during the course of assessment proceedings as well as remand proceedings, the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases with evidences. ITO Vs Atin Exports LLP 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), Surat ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. It is, therefore, prayed

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

260/-. The assessee while filing return of income declared income of Rs.22,41,941/-. The assessee in the computation of income also claimed deduction under section 80IA of Rs. 1.15 Crore. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order disallowed part of the deduction under section 80IA, thereby restricting it to Rs. 1.01 Crore. The assessing officer also disallowed

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

260/-. The assessee while filing return of income declared income of Rs.22,41,941/-. The assessee in the computation of income also claimed deduction under section 80IA of Rs. 1.15 Crore. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order disallowed part of the deduction under section 80IA, thereby restricting it to Rs. 1.01 Crore. The assessing officer also disallowed

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

260/-. The assessee while filing return of income declared income of Rs.22,41,941/-. The assessee in the computation of income also claimed deduction under section 80IA of Rs. 1.15 Crore. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order disallowed part of the deduction under section 80IA, thereby restricting it to Rs. 1.01 Crore. The assessing officer also disallowed

SHRI BHAVESH BHUVA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2(i) of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.235/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bhavesh Bhuva Income Tax Officer, C-51, Khodiyar Nagar Ward-3(3)(1), Surat, Income Vs Society, Nr. Chikoo Tax Office, Aaykar Bhavan, Wadi, Nana Varachha, Anavil Business Centre, Surat-395006 Hazira Road, Adajan, Pan No: Antpb 8989 P Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 29.05.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 10.06.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Bhavesh Bhuva “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Grossly Erred In Passing The Impugned Appellate Order On An Ex-Parte Basis, By Erroneously Holding That The Appellant Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal, When The Fact Is That The Appellant Has Made Detailed Submissions In Form No.35 Itself, Which Ought To Have Been Considered By The Learned Cit(A), Nfac While Passing The Impugned Order. Therefore, The Appellate Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Being Passed On An Ex-Parte Basis, Needs To Be Quashed As Being Erroneous, Illegal & Bad-In-Law.

260/-. The assessee proceeded for assessment and noted that the assessee explained that he made cash deposited in ICICI bank, which was cash withdrawal from his bank account on various dates. The explanation of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer recorded that assessee has shown income from partnership firm in Jay Maa Khodiyar Enterprises, where