HITENDRASINH CHANDRASINH BAKROLA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

68), invested (Section 69, 69A, 698) or incurred (Section 69C) which also shows as to why the date of payment is so very crucial. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has not fulfilled this onus upon him as he has not given any finding as to dates of payments falling in the year under consideration. Reliance

M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

68 employees are working and their total salary debited for the year is Rs. 31,07,326/- . On the basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions. Before us, no contrary fact or evidence or any law is brought to our notice by the ld. CIT-DR except relying on the order of Assessing Officer. Thus

DY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2, SURAT vs. M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO., SURAT

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

68 employees are working and their total salary debited for the year is Rs. 31,07,326/- . On the basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions. Before us, no contrary fact or evidence or any law is brought to our notice by the ld. CIT-DR except relying on the order of Assessing Officer. Thus

THE ITO, WARD -2(2)(2),, SURAT vs. SMT. HANSABEN BIPIINKUMAR KOTHARI,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.613/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt.Hansaben Bipinkumar Kothari, Ward-2(2)(2), Surat. 806-C, Kanaknidhi Apartment, Timliawad, Nanpura, Surat. [Pan: Adgpk 1894 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

282 (Del), the position was clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and it was held that the burden u/s Section 68

M/S. MAHAVIR FOODS PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.28/Ahd/2016:िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Mahavir Foodis Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sarvoday Building, Opp. Railway Ward-3, Navsari Station, Navsari. [Pan: Aabfd 8442 Q] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Shri Mahesh Rana, Employee Of िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By The Assessee Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. Dr राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By 13.05.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Pronouncement 16.05.2019 On : आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The 1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad [In Short “The Cit(A)”], Dated 27.01.2012 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 2. That The Learned Cit[A] Has Passed Impugned Order 1. Without Following Due Process Of Laws, Legal Maxim "

section 282 of the Act. However, we find that the AO has duly disposed-off this objection in the assessment order hence, submissions are not tenable. It is further mentioned in submissions that the Tribunal has granted adjournment by hearing dated 20.04.2018 to 28.05.2018 enabling the Appellant to collect certified copies for the office

BHAGYASHRI CREATION PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 can be\nmade applicable only when any sum found credited in the books of account\nof an assessee maintains in previous year. Thus, no addition can be made as\nno credit received in assessment year 2018-19. In other without prejudice\nsubmission, assesse submitted that no addition can be made on account of\nloan which was taken by assessee

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

68 of the Act and taxed at higher rate under 115BBE of the Act, which resulted into loss of revenue. But the PCIT has overlooked the fact that if the AO adopts one of the possible legal views after inquiry, the order cannot be termed as "Erroneous". Ld. AR submitted that the PCIT has erred in placing reliance

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

68 of the Act and taxed at higher rate under 115BBE of the Act, which resulted into loss of revenue. But the PCIT has overlooked the fact that if the AO adopts one of the possible legal views after inquiry, the order cannot be termed as "Erroneous". Ld. AR submitted that the PCIT has erred in placing reliance

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

68 of the Act and taxed at higher rate under 115BBE of the Act, which resulted into loss of revenue. But the PCIT has overlooked the fact that if the AO adopts one of the possible legal views after inquiry, the order cannot be termed as "Erroneous". Ld. AR submitted that the PCIT has erred in placing reliance

SHAUKATALI TAJUMAL HUSSAIN,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD. 3(2)(5), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68.” 8. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of AIR information. Notice under Section 148 dated 29/03/2016 was served upon the assessee. The case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee had deposited a cash

SHAUKATALI TAJUMAL HUSAIN,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(5),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68.” 8. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of AIR information. Notice under Section 148 dated 29/03/2016 was served upon the assessee. The case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee had deposited a cash

NEELU MAHANSARIA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.197/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Neelu Mahansaria Income Tax Officer, 304, Green Park Apartment, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat Vs City Light Road, Nr. Corner Point Complex, Surat-395007 Pan No: Adbpm 2707 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition on account of commission payment @ 2% of LTCG thereby made further addition of Rs. 30,190/- while passing the assessment order on 28.12.2016. 4. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed detailed written submission. The NFAC

RUCHIT DINESHBHAI DOSHI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ruchit Dineshbhai Doshi, I.T.O., C-10, 5/6, Somakanji Estate-2, Opp- Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. Sanidev Mandir, Magdalla Bo, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat) Pan No. Afxpd 4008 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act would not follow as a natural corollary when the assessee himself has disclosed all the details. To support such submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. Vs CIT (2006) 282

SHRI PARESH K. SORATHIYA,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2)(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2018 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Physical Court) Shri Paresh Sorathiya Income Tax Officer 195, Ambica Nagar No.2, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs Opp. Arogya Kendra, Gate, Surat-395001 Katargam Road, Surat Pan : Axbps 9579 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

68 was based on deeming provisions and merely additions were confirmed, penalty cannot be levied. The submission of assessee was not accepted by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that it is a clear case of concealment of particulars of income and assessee has not furnished particulars of income related to the source and transaction

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’).

68 of the Act. With regard to booking 4 Supreme Auto vs. Pr. CIT- Valsad /I.T.A.No.1141/AHD/2016/A.Y. 2011-12 advances, the assessee has given complete details and income of advance has been duly reflected in next year and only advance of Rs.8,97,889/- were returned to the customer against cancellation of booking. Further, explanation was called for which was replied

BHARATKUMAR RANCHODBHAI SONI,NA vs. ARIVS.PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, which he failed to do. He held that the order passed u/s 143(3)\non 30.12.2019 by the AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of\nrevenue u/s 263 of the Act. He directed AO (i) to conduct proper and meaningful\ninquiry about the source of cash deposit of Rs.49

ADDIL MOHAMADELIYAS KAPADIA,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am

282 (SC) reiterated that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" as used in section 263(1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is found to be unsustainable in law, the powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked

SHREE GANESH KHAND UDHYOG,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am

282 (SC) reiterated that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" as used in section 263(1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is found to be unsustainable in law, the powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked