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.

1) of the Act, dated 25.02.2016: (i). Copy of return of income of M/s Rangila Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y.2008-09 (ii). Confirmation of M/s Rangila Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (iii). Bank statement of M/s Rangila Suppliers Pvt. Ltd highlighting the transactions taken place during the year under consideration. (iv). Share certificate issued to the allottee, i.e. M/s Rangila Suppliers

KIRTIPRADA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

35,000/- which may be the subject matter of addition under section 68 of the Act. Therefore, Assessing Officer has erred in making addition to the tune of Rs.81,50,000/- under section 68 of the Act which is pertaining to the AY.2011-12. Assessment Year. 2012-13 11. Before we adjudicate as to whether

SAMIR S MEHTA,MAHARASHTRA vs. CIT (A)-4, 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.42/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Samir Shantilal Mehta, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, 1003, 10Th Floor, Sagardeep, South Surat. Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpm5453D (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Vartik Choksi & Biren Shah, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

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

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

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 143(1

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68,686/- Deleted/Allowed u/s 80IA 8. Out of commission paid to Rs. 4,20,000/- Deleted/Allowed Directors 9. Out of commission of sales Rs. 18,90,000/- Deleted/Allowed 10. Out of Misc. Expenses Rs. 1,88,95,000/- Deleted/Allowed 11. Out of Employees welfare Rs. 90,90,000/- Deleted/Allowed expenses 12. Income from deployment

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. M/S. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68,686/- Deleted/Allowed u/s 80IA 8. Out of commission paid to Rs. 4,20,000/- Deleted/Allowed Directors 9. Out of commission of sales Rs. 18,90,000/- Deleted/Allowed 10. Out of Misc. Expenses Rs. 1,88,95,000/- Deleted/Allowed 11. Out of Employees welfare Rs. 90,90,000/- Deleted/Allowed expenses 12. Income from deployment

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68,686/- Deleted/Allowed u/s 80IA 8. Out of commission paid to Rs. 4,20,000/- Deleted/Allowed Directors 9. Out of commission of sales Rs. 18,90,000/- Deleted/Allowed 10. Out of Misc. Expenses Rs. 1,88,95,000/- Deleted/Allowed 11. Out of Employees welfare Rs. 90,90,000/- Deleted/Allowed expenses 12. Income from deployment

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

1,965,524 758,004 10. We have also carefully gone through the copy of ledger account of all the aforementioned creditors. We find that inadvertently the tax auditor has treated the aforementioned persons under the head “unsecured loan” whereas, in fact, all the above persons are “trade creditors” and with whom the assessee has done some contract business including

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

section 142(1) dated 03.12.2018 requiring assessee to give explanation on Annexure BS 83 seized from residence of Shri Manish Sheladiya at Para No 20(h) of the said notice, copy of which is placed at page No 56 of PB. The assessee filed a detailed reply on this issue in its reply vide para 5 of reply, copy

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

section 142(1) dated 03.12.2018 requiring assessee to give explanation on Annexure BS 83 seized from residence of Shri Manish Sheladiya at Para No 20(h) of the said notice, copy of which is placed at page No 56 of PB. The assessee filed a detailed reply on this issue in its reply vide para 5 of reply, copy

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

section 142(1) dated 03.12.2018 requiring assessee to give explanation on Annexure BS 83 seized from residence of Shri Manish Sheladiya at Para No 20(h) of the said notice, copy of which is placed at page No 56 of PB. The assessee filed a detailed reply on this issue in its reply vide para 5 of reply, copy

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)

1)-4 Mumbai. d. The audit report and audited financial statements of the investor company clearly mentioned that the company has carried out the business activities during the year and the total turnover achieved by the company was 6,28,01,450/-. Thus, contention of the assessing officer that the company has not generated any revenue is totally

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

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

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

1:10 in the month of November 2010 and the price rose up after such split of shares and the assessee had sold its shares before such split in August 2010 itself. Hence this clearly implies that assessee was not involved into any bogus transactions. Had the assessee been involved, he would have known the activity of split