MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

263 by invoking provisions of Section 68 by ignoring the fact that the proviso to Section 68 was introduced by Finance Act, 2012 with prospective effect from April 01, 2012. Hence, revising order is bad in law.Therefore, it is prayed that the order of revision may kindly be quashed. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned PCIT, Valsad has erred in invoking ITA Nos. 851 to 853/SRT/2025 M/s. Dayaram Brijbhukhandas Vs. Pr.CIT & Ors. Asst.Year :2017-18 - 9– provisions of Section 263 of the Act without satisfying the twin conditions of the order being both "Erroneous

RANJANBEN AJITENDRA PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned PCIT, Valsad has erred in invoking ITA Nos. 851 to 853/SRT/2025 M/s. Dayaram Brijbhukhandas Vs. Pr.CIT & Ors. Asst.Year :2017-18 - 9– provisions of Section 263 of the Act without satisfying the twin conditions of the order being both "Erroneous

M/S DAYARAM BRIJBHUKHANDAS,NA vs. ARIVS.OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned PCIT, Valsad has erred in invoking ITA Nos. 851 to 853/SRT/2025 M/s. Dayaram Brijbhukhandas Vs. Pr.CIT & Ors. Asst.Year :2017-18 - 9– provisions of Section 263 of the Act without satisfying the twin conditions of the order being both "Erroneous

SHRI RAMJI V. JOYSHAR,,VALSAD vs. THE PR. CIT, VALSAD,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.946/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Ramji V. Joyshar, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Kalpvruksh, Palli Hill-3, ‘E’ Road, Tithal Road, Valsad. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacy1854F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surji Chheda, Ar Revenue By : Shri O.P. Vaishnav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

section 263 r.w.s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13. 2. Revised grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, which, being interconnected, will be taken up together, are as follows: 1. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT has erred

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

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 and other provisions of the Act. Thus, clause (a) of Explanation 2 of section 263(1) is also

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 and other provisions of the Act. Thus, clause (a) of Explanation 2 of section 263(1) is also

SUPREME AUTO,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1141/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Bilimora Road, National Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari - 396521. [Pan: Aamfs 3499 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 22.10.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 22.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

1 to 4 of appeal, the assessee submitted that the Pr. CIT-Valsad has erred in law and on facts in passing the 2 Supreme Auto vs. Pr. CIT- Valsad /I.T.A.No.1141/AHD/2016/A.Y. 2011-12 order under section 263 of the Act although the assessment order was passed under section 143 (3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

KIRTIPRADA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1,08,82,127 Thus, ld Counsel submits that charging of premium @ Rs. 40 per share is quite reasonable. 10. The Learned Counsel also submitted a statement showing year-wise by share application money received, which is reproduced below: STATEMENT OF YEARWISE BIFURCATION OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY PARTICULARS JAGDHATRI KAMDHENU VERTEX TOTAL SALES P. LTD. DISTRI BUTORS P. LTD SUPPLY

HOTEL ROYAL GARDEN,,DAMAN AND DIU (UT) vs. THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hotel Royal Garden, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Main Road, Dabhel, Nani Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefh2587H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca With Jayraj M. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2023

1).” 9. The Ld. PCIT further noted that in paragraph (3 e) of the letter dated 25.03.2022, the assessee has misinterpreted the whole circular issued by the CBDT. The question involved in the circular was not whether the income disclosed during the course of survey should be treated as per the provisions of section 68

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

1. The learned Pr.CIT erred in passing an order u/s 263, when the jurisdictional conditions were not satisfied. 2. The learned Pr.CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even though a detailed inquiry was carried out by the Assessing Officer on the issue pertaining to the cash deposits made by the Appellant firm during the year under consideration

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

1. The learned Pr.CIT erred in passing an order u/s 263, when the jurisdictional conditions were not satisfied. 2. The learned Pr.CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even though a detailed inquiry was carried out by the Assessing Officer on the issue pertaining to the cash deposits made by the Appellant firm during the year under consideration

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

1,03,000/- as unexplained cash credit 4 Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh Vs. Pr.CIT and made addition under Section 68 of the Act in the assessment order dated 27/12/2019. 3. The assessment order dated 27/12/2019 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act was revised by the ld. Pr.CIT by exercising his jurisdiction under Section 263

AALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.94/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Plot No.168, Udhyog Nagar Road, Udhna, Surat -394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8469M (Assessee) (Respondent)

1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. CIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263 by invoking Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act, although the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

1:10 in the month of November 2010 and the price rose up after such split of shares and the assessee had sold its shares before such split in August 2010 itself. Hence this clearly implies that assessee was not involved into any bogus transactions. Had the assessee been involved, he would have known the activity of split

JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

1:10 in the month of November 2010 and the price rose up after such split of shares and the assessee had sold its shares before such split in August 2010 itself. Hence this clearly implies that assessee was not involved into any bogus transactions. Had the assessee been involved, he would have known the activity of split