THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 68 regarding the genuineness of the transaction, stands fully satisfied by the assessee. 7.4 Now coming to the 3rd condition regarding the creditworthiness of the depositors, it is seen that out of the total loans of Rs. 1,83,56,149/-, an amount of Rs.1,63,38,904/- has been received from a single depositor viz. Smt. Binda

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 68 regarding the genuineness of the transaction, stands fully satisfied by the assessee. 7.4 Now coming to the 3rd condition regarding the creditworthiness of the depositors, it is seen that out of the total loans of Rs. 1,83,56,149/-, an amount of Rs.1,63,38,904/- has been received from a single depositor viz. Smt. Binda

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. MERRYGOLD GEMS PVT. LTD, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2020 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Merrygold Gems Pvt. Ltd., U-20, Jolly Square, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Vs Ram Chowk, Ghod Dod Road, Room No.114, 1St Floor, Surat-395007 Aaykar Bhavan, Pan No. Aaicm 7912 L Majura Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

275 (St)  CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 Taxman 35 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366itr 217 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Avant Grade Carpets Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 165 (All.) 13. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that once payment of loan is accepted as genuine than the addition made under section 68

SAI PETROLEUM,SURAT vs. PR.CIT, -1, SURAT

In the result, grounds no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.116/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sai Petroleum Principal Commissioner Of 381, Survey No.415, Sachin, Income-Tax-1, Rom 123, Vs Surat-394230 Aayakhar Bhawan, Majura Pan No: Achfs 8318 Q Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ketan S. Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.03.2023 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 15.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Ads Made By Ld. Ao As Per Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. Sai Petroleum I. Addition U/S 68 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act Amounting To Rs.13,65,241 As Unreconciled Cash Deposited In Bank Accounted As Cash Sales During Demonetization Period. Ii. Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.10,00,000 Received From Debtors As Unaccounted Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period.

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer also added Rs.10.00 lakh on account of discrepancies between assessees ledger account vis-à-vis ledger account of Swastik Transport Services Udhna and Swastik Logistics Udhana (Rs.7,25,275

ALPESH UMESHCHANDRA,SURAT vs. ITO WARD-1(2) (1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

68 of the Act. The PCIT observed that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and initiated penalty under Section 270A of the Act. The show cause notice under Section 263 dated 05.03.2024 was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee has not filed any reply, therefore, the PCIT directed

SHIVAM RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,VALSAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shivam Residential Construction Principal Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Civil Income-Tax-Valsad, Palak Vs. Hospital Road, Nanakwada, Valsad Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapcs 3137 G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-D.R

68 on advance received for land 10. The learned CIT erred in fact and in law in directing the AO to frame a fresh assessment order despite the fact that the AO had thoroughly examined the advances received by the appellant. 11. The learned CIT erred in fact and in law in directing the AO to frame a fresh assessment

M/S KAMAL RAYON PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The Grounds raised by the assessee are as under : “1) Ground No.1 states that the learned CIT(A) has erred in circumstances of the case by confirming addition of Rs.1,44,15,000/- u/s. 68 without considering the submission in spite of the fact that

MS. SHILPA MAYANK PARIKH,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1212/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Shilpa Mayank Parikh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, A-2, Atithi Bungalow, Revaba Bharuch Town Ship, Bharuch-392001 [Pan: Aespp 7558 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Shailesh J. Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr

275/-. The AO found that the assessee has taken loan from seven parties amounting to Rs.4,96,500/-. The reason for making addition of Rs.4,96,500/- u/s. 68 of the Act have been discussed in detail in the Para 3 to 10 of the assessment order. There was deposit of cash in an equal amount in the account

M/S. MEGA AIMS,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHARUCH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.722 To 723/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch. B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 To 751/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) M/S. Mega Aims, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Bharuch. Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit(Dr) Appellant By Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2023

68 would not apply. We find that ITA. 722-723 & 750-751/SRT/2018/AYs.2013-14 to 2014-15 M/s. Mega Aims Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (supra), though, on the context of repayment of loan in subsequent year, also held that when the department had accepted repayment of loan in subsequent years, no addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH vs. M/S. MEGA AIMS, BHARUCH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.722 To 723/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch. B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 To 751/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) M/S. Mega Aims, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Bharuch. Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit(Dr) Appellant By Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2023

68 would not apply. We find that ITA. 722-723 & 750-751/SRT/2018/AYs.2013-14 to 2014-15 M/s. Mega Aims Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (supra), though, on the context of repayment of loan in subsequent year, also held that when the department had accepted repayment of loan in subsequent years, no addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH vs. M/S. MEGA AIMS, BHARUCH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.722 To 723/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch. B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 To 751/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) M/S. Mega Aims, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Bharuch. Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit(Dr) Appellant By Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2023

68 would not apply. We find that ITA. 722-723 & 750-751/SRT/2018/AYs.2013-14 to 2014-15 M/s. Mega Aims Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (supra), though, on the context of repayment of loan in subsequent year, also held that when the department had accepted repayment of loan in subsequent years, no addition

M/S. MEGA AIMS,BHARUCH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.722 To 723/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Mega Aims, Bharuch. B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.750 To 751/Srt/2018 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) M/S. Mega Aims, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, B-1, Gokuldham Complex, Dahej By – Bharuch. Pass Road, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqfm1615F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit(Dr) Appellant By Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2023

68 would not apply. We find that ITA. 722-723 & 750-751/SRT/2018/AYs.2013-14 to 2014-15 M/s. Mega Aims Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (supra), though, on the context of repayment of loan in subsequent year, also held that when the department had accepted repayment of loan in subsequent years, no addition

MUKESH KEDIA HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

68 of the Act. However, in the instant case, the assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings under section u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, due to non-application of mind and incorrect Mukesh Kedia-HUF vs. PCIT Asst. Year –2017-18 - 3– application of legal provisions, thereby resulting in a revenue loss of ₹6,10,275

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

ARVINDBHAI DHANJIBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.337/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Arvindbhai Dhanjibhai Vaghasiya, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3(2)(1), 24, Meeranagar Society, Opp. Surat. Kantareshwar Mandir, Katargam, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpv1177G (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Revenue By : Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/12/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2022

275 (Guj.)] has held on the identical facts as follows: “Once the assessee has established that he has taken money by way of account payee cheques from the lenders who are all income tax assessees whose PAN have been disclosed, the initial burden under section 68

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

AARADHNA DEVELPOERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68,107 4. Pursuant to search and survey action the assessment of Global Enterprises for three assessment years (AY 2008-09 & 2009-10) were completed under section 143(3) of the Act and the assessment for were completed by DCIT, Central Circle-1, Surat on 31.12.2009 and 29.12.2011 respectively. And assessment for AY 2010-11 was completed by ACIT