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

ii) Part of Coinage Act, 2011 (vide Pb.2) (iii) Part of RBI Act, 1934 (vide Pb.3 to 4) (iv) Section 2(75) – Definition of “money” under CGST Act (vide Pb.5 to 6) (v) Internet and Mobile Association vs. Reserve Bank of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 528 of 2018 (SC) (vide Pb.7 to 9) (vi) Part of Indian Penal

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

ii) Part of Coinage Act, 2011 (vide Pb.2) (iii) Part of RBI Act, 1934 (vide Pb.3 to 4) (iv) Section 2(75) – Definition of “money” under CGST Act (vide Pb.5 to 6) (v) Internet and Mobile Association vs. Reserve Bank of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 528 of 2018 (SC) (vide Pb.7 to 9) (vi) Part of Indian Penal

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

ii) Part of Coinage Act, 2011 (vide Pb.2) (iii) Part of RBI Act, 1934 (vide Pb.3 to 4) (iv) Section 2(75) – Definition of “money” under CGST Act (vide Pb.5 to 6) (v) Internet and Mobile Association vs. Reserve Bank of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 528 of 2018 (SC) (vide Pb.7 to 9) (vi) Part of Indian Penal

LATE MANISHBHAI NAGINDAS GAJJAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for in ITA

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1335/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2011-12 Late Manishbhai Nagindas Gajjar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through L/H Illaben Manishbhai Ward- 6(3) Surat Gajjar, 316Kh Luhar Mohhallo , Palgam, Chaurasi Surat 359009 Pan: Aovpg 1860K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68,10,000. The assessee was having 1/6th share in the said property which worked out to Rs.61,34,998/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that while working out taxable long- term capital gain, the assessee has claimed index cost of acquisition at Rs.43,64,829/- on the basis of value of land taken as on 01.04.1981 at Rs.6

AALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.94/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Plot No.168, Udhyog Nagar Road, Udhna, Surat -394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8469M (Assessee) (Respondent)

3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, therefore ld PCIT issued show cause notice dated 25.02.2020 to the assessee company. 6. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the assessee company had filed written submission, before the ld PCIT, vide letter dated 03.03.2020, which is reproduced below: “In your above notice

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.

ii).IT(SS)A No.76/SRT/2021-Revenue Appeal- for AY.2010-11: Ground Nos. 5 & 6: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in entertaining the rectification application under section 154 of the Act filed by assessee and allowing the claim of set -off of the income of Rs.16,00,000/-. 3. In ITA No. 171/SRT/2021 for AY.2008-09 (assessee’s appeal): Ground No.1

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.

ii).IT(SS)A No.76/SRT/2021-Revenue Appeal- for AY.2010-11: Ground Nos. 5 & 6: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in entertaining the rectification application under section 154 of the Act filed by assessee and allowing the claim of set -off of the income of Rs.16,00,000/-. 3. In ITA No. 171/SRT/2021 for AY.2008-09 (assessee’s appeal): Ground No.1

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.

ii).IT(SS)A No.76/SRT/2021-Revenue Appeal- for AY.2010-11: Ground Nos. 5 & 6: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in entertaining the rectification application under section 154 of the Act filed by assessee and allowing the claim of set -off of the income of Rs.16,00,000/-. 3. In ITA No. 171/SRT/2021 for AY.2008-09 (assessee’s appeal): Ground No.1

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)

6 Rajendrabhai R Desai Second Amendment Act 2016 was brought on statue only after the announcing the demonetisation made on 08th November 2016. Before that, the rate of taxation under section 115BBE was 35.54% including surcharge and cess by way of this amendment, the rate was increased to 77.25% retrospectively for AY 2017-18. The amendment is in contradiction

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

3. Now, we shall take these grounds of appeal, one by one. 4. Ground no.1 raised by the assessee relates to addition of Rs.53,97,017/- on account of unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. 5. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee before us is a partnership

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE DY.CIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

II is concerned it was not a subject matter of appeal before ld. CIT(A) for the year under consideration, therefore,we are in agreement with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee that such finding given by the CIT(A) is totally incorrect and uncalled for while deciding the appeal for AY 2008- 09. Bharuch Enviro

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

II is concerned it was not a subject matter of appeal before ld. CIT(A) for the year under consideration, therefore,we are in agreement with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee that such finding given by the CIT(A) is totally incorrect and uncalled for while deciding the appeal for AY 2008- 09. Bharuch Enviro

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

II is concerned it was not a subject matter of appeal before ld. CIT(A) for the year under consideration, therefore,we are in agreement with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee that such finding given by the CIT(A) is totally incorrect and uncalled for while deciding the appeal for AY 2008- 09. Bharuch Enviro

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ADDL.CIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

II is concerned it was not a subject matter of appeal before ld. CIT(A) for the year under consideration, therefore,we are in agreement with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee that such finding given by the CIT(A) is totally incorrect and uncalled for while deciding the appeal for AY 2008- 09. Bharuch Enviro

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ACIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

II is concerned it was not a subject matter of appeal before ld. CIT(A) for the year under consideration, therefore,we are in agreement with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee that such finding given by the CIT(A) is totally incorrect and uncalled for while deciding the appeal for AY 2008- 09. Bharuch Enviro

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

II is concerned it was not a subject matter of appeal before ld. CIT(A) for the year under consideration, therefore,we are in agreement with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee that such finding given by the CIT(A) is totally incorrect and uncalled for while deciding the appeal for AY 2008- 09. Bharuch Enviro

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

3. The solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that whether provisions of section 115BBE would be applicable to tax the unexplained money being undisclosed gold, Jewellery found during the course of search, when the date of search is 16.08.2016? 4. Learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the issue is relating to taxing the unexplained money

VISHWAS BUILDERS,OPERA PALACE vs. ACIT, CIR 2(2), SURAT, MAJURAGATE, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vishwas Builders, Acit, Cir 2(2), Laskana Kholvad Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Gujarat-395004. Vs. Majuragate, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aakfv 9174 A Appellant Respondent

6) of the Act. of the Act. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) have grossly erred in sustaining the applicability learned CIT(A) have