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

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

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

71 was applicable in the present case. By applying the decision in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan as explained in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Radhe Developers India Ltd., the same cannot be declined……………" 19. We have also considered the administrative instructions for guidance of Income Tax Officers on the matters pertaining

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

71 was applicable in the present case. By applying the decision in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan as explained in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Radhe Developers India Ltd., the same cannot be declined……………" 19. We have also considered the administrative instructions for guidance of Income Tax Officers on the matters pertaining

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

71 was applicable in the present case. By applying the decision in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan as explained in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Radhe Developers India Ltd., the same cannot be declined……………" 19. We have also considered the administrative instructions for guidance of Income Tax Officers on the matters pertaining

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.

71 was applicable in the present case. By applying the decision in the case of Rajeshkumar P. Gabani Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(5), Surat/ITA No’s.1535 - 1537/AHD/2017 for A.Y’s. 2009-10 to 11-12 Page 8 of 10 Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan as explained in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Radhe Developers India

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.

71 was applicable in the present case. By applying the decision in the case of Rajeshkumar P. Gabani Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(5), Surat/ITA No’s.1535 - 1537/AHD/2017 for A.Y’s. 2009-10 to 11-12 Page 8 of 10 Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan as explained in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Radhe Developers India

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.

71 was applicable in the present case. By applying the decision in the case of Rajeshkumar P. Gabani Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2)(5), Surat/ITA No’s.1535 - 1537/AHD/2017 for A.Y’s. 2009-10 to 11-12 Page 8 of 10 Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan as explained in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Radhe Developers India

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 , viz: (i) identity, (ii) creditworthiness and (iii) genuineness of the transactions.That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 13.Ground no.2 relates to addition on account of estimation

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. The ld. CIT (A) has also supported his view by placing reliance on the decision of Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat and Hon`ble Supreme Court as mentioned in his findings reproduced above and accordingly, deleted the addition so made by the AO. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has filed this appeal before

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. SMT. FALGUNI SANDIPKUMAR NAIK, SURAT

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 19, 20 & Ita 659/Srt/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court)

Section 68 on account of unsecured loan and interest payment of Rs. 4.320 crore which includes unsecured loan of Rs. 4.263 crore plus interest of Rs. 5,71

ITO, WARD-3(3)(3), SURAT vs. M/S. M D HOUSE BUILD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

71,679 Material with Vallabhabhai labour 10 Shreeji Carting 4,54,198 4,54,198 Carting/material purchase 11 K & D Carting 3,18,377/- 3,18,377 Carting/material purchase 12 Jignesh K Korat 36,11,543 36,11,543 Material with labour 13 Jai Shihori Krupa 7,85,701 7,85,701 Carting/material Carting purchase Total

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

68. Ground No. [iii] relates to deleting the addition of Rs.71,29,433/- on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 69. Brief facts for adjudication of this ground of appeal are that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to assessee for disallowance for expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, which does

SHIVAM ENTERPRISE,ALTHAN vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

68, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent. Despite such facts and circumstances and specific provisions of law in section 115BBE(2) of the Act, Assessing Officer has completed assessment determining total at Rs.7,88,56,573/- and thereby allowing your erroneous claim to the tune

SHYAM CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

68, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent. Despite such facts and circumstances and specific provisions of law in section 115BBE(2) of the Act, Assessing Officer has completed assessment determining total at Rs.7,88,56,573/- and thereby allowing your erroneous claim to the tune

ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. SHRI FATEHSINH MOHANSINH CHAUHAN, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Fatehsinh Mohansinh Income-Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi Chauhan, Haveli, Vs Fortune Square-Ii, 7Th Floor, Swaminarayan Marg, Room No. 704, Daman Road, Silvassa-396230, Dadara Chala, Cvapi-396191 & Nagar Haveli Pan : Abppc 6997 C Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

68 of Rs. 2.26 Crore. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that notice under 8 Sh. Fatehsinh M Chauhan section 148 was issued within four years from the end of relevant assessment year. From record of the case the Assessing Officer found introduction of certain money, the identity of persons were not available on the record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 111, SURAT vs. MUKESH ARJANBHAI MANIYA, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Mukesh Arjanbhai Maniya बनाम/ Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), C-303, Afil Tower, L.H. Road, Vs. Surat, Room No.108, 1St Varachha, Surat-395 006 Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afepm 7227 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

section 250(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and Rule 46A(3) of the Income tax Rules, 1962 ? 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidences, which were not produced before the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings, without appreciating

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.

Sections 68 and 69 are not applicable for trading transactions like deposit of cash out of cash sales and excess closing stock. For that reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills Ltd, Tax Appeal No. 290 of 2013, dated 04.04.2013. Therefore, we direct the Assessing