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

section 40A(3A) of the Act, 1961. (disallowance in ground no.7 in ITA No.194/SRT/22 at Rs.38,000/- and Ground No.3 in ITA No.193/SRT/22 at Rs.11,88,236/- ) (iv) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.193/SRT/2022, are as follows: “On the facts on the facts

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

section 40A(3A) of the Act, 1961. (disallowance in ground no.7 in ITA No.194/SRT/22 at Rs.38,000/- and Ground No.3 in ITA No.193/SRT/22 at Rs.11,88,236/- ) (iv) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, and ground No. 2 raised by the assessee, in ITA No.193/SRT/2022, are as follows: “On the facts on the facts

M/S. UNITED SALT WORKS,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.208/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S United Salt Works Income Tax Officer, 9, Pruthvi Nagar, 1St Floor, Ward-1(3), 2Nd Floor, Above Vs Station Road, Bharuch- Bank Of Baroda Building, 392001 Station Road, Bharuch- Pan : Aaafu 4725 A 392001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

section 40A(3) was to check evasion of tax so that payment is made from disclosed sources. The assessee furnished the copy of money receipt of DGVCL and prayed to allow such expenses as business expenses. The submission of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer held that electric consumption charges of Rs.2,68

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. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.1,20,442/- on account of disallowed expenditure u/s. 40A(3). 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

SHRI NILESHKUMAR BHAGVANBHAI BODARA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2776/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13

40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance of purchases are restricted to 5% which comes to Rs.41,903/- and balance disallowance of purchases of Rs.7,96,164/- is deleted. Consequently, this ground of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 8. Ground No. 2 relates to confirming action of the AO in making disallowance of Rs.2,98,898/- being

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

68 of the Act. It was further noted that on cash loan provisions of section 269SS and 269T were attracted. There was non-application of mind the AO not made full inquiry and assessment is made without making due disallowances / additions under section 37, 40A(3

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

68 of the Act. It was further noted that on cash loan provisions of section 269SS and 269T were attracted. There was non-application of mind the AO not made full inquiry and assessment is made without making due disallowances / additions under section 37, 40A(3

LATE SHRI BHIMSEN DARBARILAL ARORA,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, SURAT

In the result, ground no.4 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Through, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, L/H. Rajat Bhimsen Arora, Surat. Smt. Mamta Bhimsen Arora, A-201, Madhulika Apartment, Bhatar Road, Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acaps9230L

40A(3) of the Act. As stated by assessee, "the copies of purchase bills (which are not produced as discussed in earlier para) and ledger accounts, simultaneously establish that the raw-materials has been purchased by making payments by A/c payee cheques". The contention is not correct because bills are not produced and copy of bank statement reflecting names

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 and u/s 69 of the Act, respectively. Further there was no show cause for charging of tax at 30% as per the mandate of section 115BBE of the Act. Thus, Assessing Officer has violated ITA No.73/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar principal of natural justice. In this regard, ld Counsel relied on the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case

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. It appears that on cash loan provisions of section 269SS and 269T were attracted. The IDS made by the assessee was based on misrepresentation or suppressions of facts. There was non-application of mind the AO not made full inquiry and assessment is made without making due disallowances / additions under section 37,40A(3

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. It appears that on cash loan provisions of section 269SS and 269T were attracted. The IDS made by the assessee was based on misrepresentation or suppressions of facts. There was non-application of mind the AO not made full inquiry and assessment is made without making due disallowances / additions under section 37,40A(3

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. It appears that on cash loan provisions of section 269SS and 269T were attracted. The IDS made by the assessee was based on misrepresentation or suppressions of facts. There was non-application of mind the AO not made full inquiry and assessment is made without making due disallowances / additions under section 37,40A(3

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT vs. M/S. M.D. INFRA DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, Assessee’s appeal, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3058 To 3059/Ahd/2016 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3085/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2, 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3093 To 3094/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Surat. 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mitish S. Modi, C.A & Shri Akshay Modi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

section 40A(3) in both the years. 22. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 23. Shri Mitish S. Modi, Learned Counsel for the assessee, pleads that loose

M/S. M.D.INFRA DEVELOPERS,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the result, Assessee’s appeal, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3058 To 3059/Ahd/2016 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3085/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2, 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3093 To 3094/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Surat. 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mitish S. Modi, C.A & Shri Akshay Modi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

section 40A(3) in both the years. 22. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 23. Shri Mitish S. Modi, Learned Counsel for the assessee, pleads that loose

M/S. M.D.INFRA DEVELOPERS,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the result, Assessee’s appeal, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3058 To 3059/Ahd/2016 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3085/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2, 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3093 To 3094/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Surat. 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mitish S. Modi, C.A & Shri Akshay Modi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

section 40A(3) in both the years. 22. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 23. Shri Mitish S. Modi, Learned Counsel for the assessee, pleads that loose

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD.),VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for A

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.2886/Ahd/2010, 794/Ahd/2014 & 1769/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 बनाम M/S. Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Addl. Cit Range- ( Now Known As M/S. Bayer Vapi Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Private Limited) 306/3,Phase-Ii Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyer - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O. P. Singh Cit (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 26.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Three Appeals For The Assessment Year 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Dated 28.07.2010 & Dated 15.01.2014 Respectively Under The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] On The Direction Of Drp By The Addl. Cit Range-Vapi Range Vapi (Herein After Referred As The Ao) & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Dated 29.04.2016. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed As Under: It(Tp)A No.2886/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 2006-07/ By The Assessee: 2. Ground Nos.1 Is General In Nature & Do Not Require Adjudication.

40A(2)(b). The assessee has acquired the Lmidachloropid business of Mitsu Limited as slump sale basis for a total consideration of Rs.27.50 crores as a going concern basis. M/s. Mitsu Industries Ltd. has been carrying on its business from last 15 years and Lmidachloropid was one of the pesticides for which necessary process, technical knowhow, knowledge and idea

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68 as unexplained credit amounts to double taxation of the same income. The said situation has been upheld in latest Apex Court Judgment of Montage Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 100 (SC) and other decisions. The Honorable CIT(A) has also relied on the said decisions as mentioned in last para of the Appellate order challenged by the revenue

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68 as unexplained credit amounts to double taxation of the same income. The said situation has been upheld in latest Apex Court Judgment of Montage Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 100 (SC) and other decisions. The Honorable CIT(A) has also relied on the said decisions as mentioned in last para of the Appellate order challenged by the revenue