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.

section 68 of the Act. ITA Nos.52/SRT/2022 & 171, 174/SRT/2021/IT(SS)A 69, 70, 75 & 76/SRT/2021 Betex India Ltd. & Dhanpriya

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

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

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

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 regarding the genuineness of the transaction, stands fully satisfied by the assessee. 7.4 Now coming to the 3rd condition regarding the creditworthiness of the depositors, it is seen that out of the total loans of Rs. 1,83,56,149/-, an amount of Rs.1,63,38,904/- has been received from a single depositor viz. Smt. Binda

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 regarding the genuineness of the transaction, stands fully satisfied by the assessee. 7.4 Now coming to the 3rd condition regarding the creditworthiness of the depositors, it is seen that out of the total loans of Rs. 1,83,56,149/-, an amount of Rs.1,63,38,904/- has been received from a single depositor viz. Smt. Binda

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, SURAT vs. ELLSONS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1485/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Ellsons Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2/2222, 2Nd Floor, Avichal Krupa, Nagar Surat. Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacce5530E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri O.P. Vaishnav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cas- 3/Trfd-1/404/2015-16, Dated 31.03.2017, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”], Dated 31.03.2015. The Grievances Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “1.Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Facts & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Unexplained Share Application & Share Premium Amounting To Rs. 4,50,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Company Could Not Satisfy The Creditworthiness, Identity Of The Alleged Investors & Genuineness Of Transaction Remained Unexplained? 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) May Be Set Aside & That Of Assessing Office May Be Restored To The Above Extent.” Assessment Years.2012-13

70,00,000 2 Season Multitrade P. Ltd. 1,24,000 1,24,00,000 3 Virgo Mercantile P. Ltd. 37,000 37,00,000 4 Mili Commodities P. Ltd. 60,000 60,00,000 5 Lona Mercantile P. Ltd. 89,000 89,00,000 6 Mascot Mutitrade P. Ltd. 20,000 20,00,000 7 Coral Multitrade

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 sustained. To support such submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon following case law:  CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji 42 taxmann.com 251(Guj.)  CIT vs. Mahavir Crimpers 95 taxmann.com 323 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Karaj Singh 15 taxmann.com 70

HITENDRASINH CHANDRASINH BAKROLA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

68 or Section 69 is not invokable because the deeming provisions of Section 68/69 and Section 56(2)(vii)(c) are mutually exclusive. The Department has not filed any CO against the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). It is contented that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) is not applicable because the same

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

section 68 of the Act by the AO. Au contraire, the learned counsel for the assessee referred para 12. No. 8.2 (vii) at Page No. 10 of assessment order and submitted that DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat Vs. Kejriwal Industries Ltd.,/ITA No.1509/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 Page 26 of 49 the AO has observed that the ACIT

RAMESHKUMAR KARSANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(5), SURAT

Accordingly the estimated addition made of Rs.35,166/-[0.5% of 70,33,182/-] by the AC invoking provision of section 69C of the I.T Act stand deleted. Thus this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

70,33,182/-] by the AC invoking provision of section 69C of the I.T Act stand deleted. Thus this ground is allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition u/s 68

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3) SURAT vs. MEGA COLLECTIONS PVT LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.311/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. Mega Collections Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 38-39, Kamla Estate, Gitanjali Petrol Pump, Varachha Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagcm3809C

68 of the Act for unexplained Share capital + Share Premium and unsecured loan as the decision of the Hon'ble 1TAT, Surat in assessee's own case on similar issue for the A.Y 2012-13 has not been accepted by the department and further appeal have been filed before the Hon'ble High Court where decision is pending

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

70 and if the same is considered under any other head other than 'salaries', set off to be under Section 71 of the Act.” ITA No.51, 52 & 53/SRT/2020 (AY 2009-10 to 2011-12) Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani 15. We have also considered the decision in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. D.P.Sandu

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

70 and if the same is considered under any other head other than 'salaries', set off to be under Section 71 of the Act.” ITA No.51, 52 & 53/SRT/2020 (AY 2009-10 to 2011-12) Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani 15. We have also considered the decision in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. D.P.Sandu

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

70 and if the same is considered under any other head other than 'salaries', set off to be under Section 71 of the Act.” ITA No.51, 52 & 53/SRT/2020 (AY 2009-10 to 2011-12) Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani 15. We have also considered the decision in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. D.P.Sandu

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR POPATBHAI GABANI,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5)., SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

70 and if the same is considered under any other head other than 'salaries', set off to be under Section 71 of the Act.” 12. We have also considered the decision in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. D.P.Sandu Bros. [2005] Taxmann 713 (SC) wherein it has been held that section