SHRI RAJENDRABHAI RAMANLAL DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

68 to 69D are residuary sections and the same is applied only where the amount was not taxed under any specific chapter. In the present case in hand, the respondent assessee company is engaged in the business of Jewellery. The difference in the quantity of stock was during the normal business activities of the respondent assessee company. The excess

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, 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 prospective and applicable only from assessment year 2013-14. 35. It is noted that the all the above

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 prospective and applicable only from assessment year 2013-14. 35. It is noted that the all the above

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 prospective and applicable only from assessment year 2013-14. 35. It is noted that the all the above

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

68 of the Act. Hence, addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT (A) may please be deleted. 4. Succinctly, facts as culled out from the orders of lower authorities are that the assessee company has filed its return of income on 11.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 39,600, which was processed under section

DIYA FABRICS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

68 of the Act, hence we delete the addition. 17. We note that Assessing Officer has disallowed sundry creditors on estimated basis, at the rate of 25% of the sundry creditors of Rs.2,15,88,066/-, without rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee. As per assessing officer, an individual creditor is true up to 75% level and untrue

SEJAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act was brought w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and is not retrospective as held by Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 1613 of 2014] (Mum HC) and PCIT vs. Apeak Infotech – [2017] 397 ITR 148 (Bombay) ITA No.435/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Sejal Jewellers

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

section 68, namely, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and share premium received by it from share subscribers companies. 13. We note that ld CIT(A) in his appellate order has discussed each share applicant company. The various inquiries conducted by the AO in regard to these three investor companies and the assessee’s submission

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), 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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, we have to note that more than 90 appeals were allowed by the Tribunal in a single order and the facts of the 89 assessees were not noted by the Tribunal. In any event, the assessee, Mr.Gupta was quite happy with the result and he made no attempt to request the Tribunal to note

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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, we have to note that more than 90 appeals were allowed by the Tribunal in a single order and the facts of the 89 assessees were not noted by the Tribunal. In any event, the assessee, Mr.Gupta was quite happy with the result and he made no attempt to request the Tribunal to note

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), 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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, we have to note that more than 90 appeals were allowed by the Tribunal in a single order and the facts of the 89 assessees were not noted by the Tribunal. In any event, the assessee, Mr.Gupta was quite happy with the result and he made no attempt to request the Tribunal to note

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

68 of the Act. Furthermore, we have to note that more than 90 appeals were allowed by the Tribunal in a single order and the facts of the 89 assessees were not noted by the Tribunal. In any event, the assessee, Mr.Gupta was quite happy with the result and he made no attempt to request the Tribunal to note

RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

68 of the I.T. Act,1961 without\nacknowledging the submission of the assessee.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the\nsubject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of Assessing\nOffice in making addition of Rs.3,406/- as unexplained expenditure u/s\n69C

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

68 of the Act, therefore the question of applicability of section 115BBE of the Act, does not arise, hence we allow ground No.6 raised by the assessee. 32. In the result, assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, is partly allowed in above terms. 33. Now we shall take Summarised and concise Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

68 of the Act, therefore the question of applicability of section 115BBE of the Act, does not arise, hence we allow ground No.6 raised by the assessee. 32. In the result, assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, is partly allowed in above terms. 33. Now we shall take Summarised and concise Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

68 of the Act, therefore the question of applicability of section 115BBE of the Act, does not arise, hence we allow ground No.6 raised by the assessee. 32. In the result, assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, is partly allowed in above terms. 33. Now we shall take Summarised and concise Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

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

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

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act. ITA No.73/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar 13. Further, a sum of Rs.98,037/- being commission paid @ 2% of the LTCG was also added by the assessing officer, as unexplained expenditure under section 69 of the Act. 14. The Assessing Officer also held that tax on the above unaccounted income of Rs.49,99,877/- (Rs.49