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

SHRI ANANDKUMAR RAWATRAM JOSHI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2112/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2007-08 & & I.T.A. No. 2135 /Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 Shri Anand Kumar Joshi Vs. Income Tax Officer, 407 Manoj Market Ring Road Ward- 2(2) Surat Surat 395002 Pan: Aelpj2447K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68,66,115 under section 40A(3)(b) for the assessment year 2007-08 is made by passing order under section 154 by observing that no notice under section 154 is required to be issued as the assessee has been heard while passing assessment order for the assessment year 2008-09 in set-aside proceedings. In view

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

40A(3). 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the addition without issuing any Show Cause Notice as required by law. 4. It is therefore prayed that addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by CIT (A) may please be deleted. Diya Fabrics

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). 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that assessee has made payment by cheque throughout relevant financial year, except for the month of March, 2014 and assessee has not shown any bona fide reason which may fall within the exceptional category of 6DD of the IT Rules

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)

9. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and filed her return of income on 04.03.2015, declaring total income of Rs.4,22,502/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18.09.2015 and the same was duly served upon

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

40A(3), the ld AR for the assessee submits that ld PCIT in the for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Satyam Textile Park show cause notice noted that although, assessee worked out the net profit of Rs. 2,27,88,724/- but, in the IDS disclosure, the assessee made disclosure of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- as unaccounted cash / receivables

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

40A(3), the ld AR for the assessee submits that ld PCIT in the for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Satyam Textile Park show cause notice noted that although, assessee worked out the net profit of Rs. 2,27,88,724/- but, in the IDS disclosure, the assessee made disclosure of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- as unaccounted cash / receivables

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

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

SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Tulsibhai Bhagwanbhai The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Patel, Majura Gate, Surat. Vs. 9-10, Kasturba Nagar Society, Nr. Baroda Pristage, Varachha Road, Surat. Also At C/O Sh. Ashwin Parekh & Co 401-404, Rajhans Banista, Behind Ram Chowk Temple , Gdod Dhod Road, Suart E-Mail: Akparekh_1989@Yahoo.Co.In Pan : Abrpp 1239 Q Appellant Respondent

9-10, Kasturba Nagar Society, Nr. Baroda Pristage, Varachha Road, Surat. Also at C/o Sh. Ashwin Parekh & Co 401-404, Rajhans Banista, behind Ram Chowk Temple , Gdod Dhod Road, Suart E-mail: akparekh_1989@yahoo.co.in PAN : ABRPP 1239 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Aswin K Parekh - C.A Revenue by Ms. Anupama Singla – Sr.DR Date of hearing 07.10.2021 Date of pronouncement

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR and Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss account. Thereafter notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 10.08.2016 and duly served upon the assessee firm on 27/08/2016. Subsequently a notice u/s 142(1) cum- questionnaire was issued on 02.06.2017 and this was too duly served upon the assessee’s firm

M/S. K.N. DIAMOND,,BILIMORA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1788/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S K.N.Diamond, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Soniwad, Bilimora, Of Income Tax, Navsari Navsari – 396 321. Circle, Navsari. [Pan: Aadfk 3167 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Parimalsinh Parmar – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

40A(2) of the Act, unless the Assessing Officer brings on record Fair Market Value(FMV) on similar services. The Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) failed to bring on record any reasonable cases as to FMV on similar services. In support of his submissions, the Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions,  CIT vs. Sarjan Realities – [2014] 50 taxmann.com

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’).

40A(2)(b) of the Act. With regard to unsecured loan, it was submitted that these are old loan coming from last year, hence, no addition can be made during the year under consideration under section 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

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

40A(3), 40(a)(ia) 68 and other provisions of the Act. The AO has not examined the payment of interest in cash and sources of cash payment made for purchase of land in village Kathore is also not examined either in the hand of firm or partners. Further arrangement regarding use of partners land and its related expenses

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

40A(3), 40(a)(ia) 68 and other provisions of the Act. The AO has not examined the payment of interest in cash and sources of cash payment made for purchase of land in village Kathore is also not examined either in the hand of firm or partners. Further arrangement regarding use of partners land and its related expenses

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

40A(3), 40(a)(ia) 68 and other provisions of the Act. The AO has not examined the payment of interest in cash and sources of cash payment made for purchase of land in village Kathore is also not examined either in the hand of firm or partners. Further arrangement regarding use of partners land and its related expenses