DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

68 of the Act, which is to be taxed under the provisions u/s 115BBE of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the ‘on-money’ receipts.” (iv) Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.318/SRT/22 for A.Y.2017-18, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.319/SRT/22 for A Y 2018-19 and ground No.1 raised

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

68 of the Act, which is to be taxed under the provisions u/s 115BBE of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the ‘on-money’ receipts.” (iv) Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.318/SRT/22 for A.Y.2017-18, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.319/SRT/22 for A Y 2018-19 and ground No.1 raised

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

68 of the Act, which is to be taxed under the provisions u/s 115BBE of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the ‘on-money’ receipts.” (iv) Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.318/SRT/22 for A.Y.2017-18, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.319/SRT/22 for A Y 2018-19 and ground No.1 raised

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

68 of the Act, which is to be taxed under the provisions u/s 115BBE of the Act, despite the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the ‘on-money’ receipts.” (iv) Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.318/SRT/22 for A.Y.2017-18, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.319/SRT/22 for A Y 2018-19 and ground No.1 raised

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

293 (Cochin Trib.). Since, the onus has not been discharged by the revenue, therefore addition sustained u/s.69 of the Act needs to be deleted. Further, for invoking of section 69 of the Act, the AO or CIT(A) first come to the finding that the assessee has made investment which is not recorded in the books of account

KANAIYALAL LABHUBHAI NAROLA,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurpose

section\n250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act') by the Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (Appeals) 11, Ahmedabad, [in short “the CIT(A)"],'), dated\n29.09.2023 for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15.\n2.\nThe grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are as follows:\n“(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI JETHABHAI DANABHAI VADHER, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas assessee’s

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide, order dated 30.12.2016. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: ITA No.142/SRT/2020 & CO 17/SRT/2020 A.Y. 2014-15 Sh. Jethabhai D Vadher “1. Whether on facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.15/Srt/2021 & 27/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Poonam Developers, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-1, 402, Amar Chambers, Opp. Lal Vapi. School, Station Road, Valsad- 396001. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Poonam Developers, Vapi. 402, Amar Chambers, Opp. Lal School, Station Road, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaxfm9582G (Revenue) (Assessee) Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Assessee By Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr Respondent By 11/02/2022 Date Of Hearing 06/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

section 68 of the Act. 8. On appeal, ld CIT(A), keeping in view the facts of the assessee’s case, restricted the addition @ 20% as net profit of the total gross receipts as income of the assessee. Aggrieved, by the order of ld CIT(A), the Assessee, as well as, Revenue, both are in cross appeals before

POONAM DEVELOPERS,VALSAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.15/Srt/2021 & 27/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Poonam Developers, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-1, 402, Amar Chambers, Opp. Lal Vapi. School, Station Road, Valsad- 396001. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Acit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Poonam Developers, Vapi. 402, Amar Chambers, Opp. Lal School, Station Road, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaxfm9582G (Revenue) (Assessee) Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Assessee By Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr Respondent By 11/02/2022 Date Of Hearing 06/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

section 68 of the Act. 8. On appeal, ld CIT(A), keeping in view the facts of the assessee’s case, restricted the addition @ 20% as net profit of the total gross receipts as income of the assessee. Aggrieved, by the order of ld CIT(A), the Assessee, as well as, Revenue, both are in cross appeals before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD vs. M/S. MANGALDEEP, VALSAD

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

68, 69,69A,69B, 69C." 7.However, the Assessing Officer has rejected the contention of the assessee and held that since the excess stock was declared on the basis of difference in physical stock as per books of accounts which was not recorded in its regular books of accounts and the assessee was very well aware that as the above stock

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

293/- 15. Without prejudice to ground 14(b), it is submitted that write back of provision for pit covering expenses amounting to Rs.3,07,052/- ought to be excluded while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

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

293/- 15. Without prejudice to ground 14(b), it is submitted that write back of provision for pit covering expenses amounting to Rs.3,07,052/- ought to be excluded while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

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

293/- 15. Without prejudice to ground 14(b), it is submitted that write back of provision for pit covering expenses amounting to Rs.3,07,052/- ought to be excluded while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act considering discount given to the dealers is not in the nature of commission liable for deduction of tax at sources u/s 194H of the IT Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred by deleting the disallowance of Rs.4

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act considering discount given to the dealers is not in the nature of commission liable for deduction of tax at sources u/s 194H of the IT Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred by deleting the disallowance of Rs.4

HEMANT NARESH AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

68 ITR 240 (SC) and CIT vs. Bankey Lal Vaidya [1971] 79 ITR 594 (SC) held that the distribution, division or allotment of assets between partners of a firm consequent on its dissolution amounts to a mutual adjustment of rights of the partners and such transaction was neither a sale nor exchange nor transfer of assets of the firm. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. JAYANTIBHAI VIRJIBHAI BABARIYA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.297/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Income-Tax, Circle-2, Surat, Vs. K-801, River View Heights, Room No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pedar Road, Mota Varachha, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-394101 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb 0820 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68,000/- in the assessment order passed for A.Y.2018- 19 and did not made the additions of Rs.41,67,45,000/- as made in the assessment order under consideration. These facts clearly prove that the additions made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of sauda chithi are not justified. Hence, deserves to be deleted. The DVO's report

JAYESHBHAI BECHARBHAI CHOVATIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 610/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Jayeshbhai Becharbhai Chovatiya Ito, Ward-2(3)(2), 293 Hans Society, Opp. Krishna Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, बनाम Township Mota Varachha, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-394 101 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aqipp 0434 H] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

293 Hans Society, Opp. Krishna Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, बनाम Township Mota Varachha, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-394 101 Surat-395 001 [PAN : AQIPP 0434 H] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri P.M. Jagasheth. CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Mukesh Jain– Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing