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

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

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

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

68 of the Act. It is also noted that in spite of repeated request, the Ld. Assessing Officer did not provide opportunity to cross examine the concerned persons and even the relevant information and allegation, if any, made therein, which has been used against the assessee, was not provided to the assessee. At this stage, we add here that mere

MAHOTSAV CREATION PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, -1,, SURAT

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

68 of the Act. It is also noted that in spite of repeated request, the Ld. Assessing Officer did not provide opportunity to cross examine the concerned persons and even the relevant information and allegation, if any, made therein, which has been used against the assessee, was not provided to the assessee. At this stage, we add here that mere

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Total of the disputed ITA No.1991/Ahd/2016 and 715/Ahd/2017 28 addition involved is Rs.2,40,46,423/- representing Rs.1,06,66

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Total of the disputed ITA No.1991/Ahd/2016 and 715/Ahd/2017 28 addition involved is Rs.2,40,46,423/- representing Rs.1,06,66

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

section 68 cannot be invoked. We find the ld AR for the assessee filed following summary of impugned deposits and refunds; Sr. Details of payers Details of trade advance received Details of trade advance repaid Repayment No. within Name Date of receipt Amount received Date of Amount Repaid payment 1. M/s Anushul Gems Pvt. 20/08/2015

SMT. PURNIMA SUNIL AGRAWAL,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,VAPI WARD-2,, VAPI

In the result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court-Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3224/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 902, Orchid Tower, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi. Chharwada Road, Vapi Dist. Valsad-396195. [Pan: Aavpa 0055 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 68 of the Act treating as bogus creditors/unexplained creditors. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was repeatedly requested to produce the books of accounts including purchase bills, purchase register, vouchers etc., but the assessee failed to do so. In the audit report at point No.9(b) Annexure-I) the auditor has specifically mentioned that

DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. QUANT CAPITAL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., M/S Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vapi Circle, 612-617, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3142 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., M/S Quant Capital Private Limited Vapi Circle, 612-617, Makers Chambers Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3159 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

66,799 4. The assessee further stated that all transactions pertain to equity shares application and preference share application money which were related to intergroup company transactions. To discharge the onus as per Section 68

DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE , VAPI vs. M/S. QCAP SECURITIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., M/S Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vapi Circle, 612-617, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3142 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., M/S Quant Capital Private Limited Vapi Circle, 612-617, Makers Chambers Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3159 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

66,799 4. The assessee further stated that all transactions pertain to equity shares application and preference share application money which were related to intergroup company transactions. To discharge the onus as per Section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(4), SURAT vs. M/S. MANSI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. M/S. Mansi Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat. Block No.80, Village. Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm6514M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/07/2022 29/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

section 68 regarding the genuineness of the transaction, stands fully satisfied by the assessee. 18. About the third condition regarding the creditworthiness of the depositors, the ld CIT(A) noted that assessing officer was mainly dissatisfied with regard to creditworthiness of the depositors quo their source of income and capital of the Lender. The assessing officer has treated

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

66,909) u/s 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) was of the view that balance amount of Rs.35,33,091/- is not generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs.35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. M/S. DAGINA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., , SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

66,909) u/s 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) was of the view that balance amount of Rs.35,33,091/- is not generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs.35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

66,909) u/s 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) was of the view that balance amount of Rs.35,33,091/- is not generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs.35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRA CIR.2, SURAT vs. DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

66,909) u/s 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) was of the view that balance amount of Rs.35,33,091/- is not generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs.35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section

DAGINA JEWELLERS INDIA (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

66,909) u/s 68 of the Act. The ld CIT(A) was of the view that balance amount of Rs.35,33,091/- is not generated not from actual sale of jewellery or bullion, therefore, ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to tax the amount of Rs.35,33,091/- as per the provisions of section