BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 68, is not applicable to the assessee company under consideration, as the assessee`s, assessment year is 2008-09. The Hon`ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure 80 Taxmann.Com 272

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 68, is not applicable to the assessee company under consideration, as the assessee`s, assessment year is 2008-09. The Hon`ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure 80 Taxmann.Com 272

M/S. TIRUPATI ENERGY SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.573/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 M/S. Tirupati Energy Solution Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. , 1/B Ratnadham Ward- 2(1)(4) Surat Vinay Apartment , Ratnadham Sankhul Piplod Surat Pan: Aacct 7044 G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 68 is not retrospective as held by Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 680 (Bom) [2017] 247 Taxman 245 (Bom), [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272

THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. PANKAJ ENKA PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

section 68, is not applicable to the assessee company under consideration, as the assessee`s, assessment year is 2012-13. The Hon`ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure 80 Taxmann.Com 272

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. GANDHI CAPITAL PVT.LTD.,, SURAT

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2922/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(2), Vs. M/S. Gandhi Capital Private Limited, Shop No. 5017, 5Th Floor, Jash Market, Ring Surat. Road, Sahara Darwaja, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg2903J (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Revenue By :Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [“The Ld. Cit(A)” In Short] In Appeal No. Cas-3/Tfrd-1/79/2015-16,Dated 24.08.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Assessing Officer) Under Section143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”], Dated 31.03.2015. 2. Grievances Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:

section 68, is not applicable to the assessee company under consideration, as the assessee`s, assessment year is 2012-13. The Hon`ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure 80 Taxmann.Com 272

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, SURAT vs. ELLSONS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1485/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Ellsons Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2/2222, 2Nd Floor, Avichal Krupa, Nagar Surat. Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacce5530E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri O.P. Vaishnav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cas- 3/Trfd-1/404/2015-16, Dated 31.03.2017, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”], Dated 31.03.2015. The Grievances Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “1.Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Facts & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Unexplained Share Application & Share Premium Amounting To Rs. 4,50,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Company Could Not Satisfy The Creditworthiness, Identity Of The Alleged Investors & Genuineness Of Transaction Remained Unexplained? 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) May Be Set Aside & That Of Assessing Office May Be Restored To The Above Extent.” Assessment Years.2012-13

section 68, is not applicable to the assessee company under consideration, as the assessee`s, assessment year is 2012-13. The Hon`ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure 80 Taxmann.Com 272

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

section 68, is not applicable to the assessee company under consideration, as the assessee`s, assessment year is 2011-12. The Hon`ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure 80 Taxmann.Com 272

JYOTSNABEN N RAMI,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Smt. Jyotsnaben N. Rami, I.T.O., D-1 L H Road, Panchsutra Garden Ward-3(3)(1) Vs. Apartment, Opp.-Bombay Market, Surat. Surat-395006 (Gujarat) Pan No. Acapr 0313 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 can be made if the amount of cash deposit is sale proceed traded then the Assessing Officer should estimate some profit as on amount of cash deposit in Section 44AD of the Act. Since the assessee has already shown profit @ 22.17% so there is no question of further estimating the profit. The assessee specifically mentioned that even

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’).

272/- Baya Kadar Memon Rs.6,20,464/- Famidaarifbhai Memon Rs.6,20,464/- Arifbhai I. Memon Rs.9,07,318/- and Navinbhai Patel Rs.3,00,000/-. There are confirmations of four parties whereas unsecured loan have been taken from five parties. Further, the assessee has taken booking advance of Rs.1,75,20,679/- during the year under consideration as against Rs.17

MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI PROP. SHRUSHTI ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, - 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.65/SRT/2019 for AY.2013-14, in the case of Shri Parag Nareshbhai Mehta, is not maintainable in the eye of law as the tax effect involved

VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR PROP. OF ADITI EXPORTS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.65/SRT/2019 for AY.2013-14, in the case of Shri Parag Nareshbhai Mehta, is not maintainable in the eye of law as the tax effect involved

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.65/SRT/2019 for AY.2013-14, in the case of Shri Parag Nareshbhai Mehta, is not maintainable in the eye of law as the tax effect involved

ITO, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.65/SRT/2019 for AY.2013-14, in the case of Shri Parag Nareshbhai Mehta, is not maintainable in the eye of law as the tax effect involved

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.65/SRT/2019 for AY.2013-14, in the case of Shri Parag Nareshbhai Mehta, is not maintainable in the eye of law as the tax effect involved

SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA PROP. OF BRIGHT DIAMONDS,SURATY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.65/SRT/2019 for AY.2013-14, in the case of Shri Parag Nareshbhai Mehta, is not maintainable in the eye of law as the tax effect involved

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.65/SRT/2019 for AY.2013-14, in the case of Shri Parag Nareshbhai Mehta, is not maintainable in the eye of law as the tax effect involved

PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA PROP. OF DEEKSHA TRADING ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), , SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.65/SRT/2019 for AY.2013-14, in the case of Shri Parag Nareshbhai Mehta, is not maintainable in the eye of law as the tax effect involved

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTERS PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68,34,249/- on account of alleged bogus purchase by estimation of profit at the rate of 5% of alleged bogus purchase. 4. It is therefore prayed that addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted or the matter may please be set aside to the file of CIT(A). 5. Appellant