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)

68 to 69D are residuary sections and the same is applied only where the amount was not taxed under any specific chapter. In the present case in hand, the respondent assessee company is engaged in the business of Jewellery. The difference in the quantity of stock was during the normal business activities of the respondent assessee company. The excess

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)

68 as it stood in the statute before its amendment w.e.f A.Y. 2013-2014.If there is sufficient bank balance before issuing the amount to the assessee company for investing in the shares, then there is hardly any scope left to doubt the genuineness of the funds. Moreover, it is to be appreciated that the companies have reasonably good amount of balances

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. GANDHI CAPITAL PVT.LTD.,, SURAT

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2922/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(2), Vs. M/S. Gandhi Capital Private Limited, Shop No. 5017, 5Th Floor, Jash Market, Ring Surat. Road, Sahara Darwaja, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg2903J (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Revenue By :Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [“The Ld. Cit(A)” In Short] In Appeal No. Cas-3/Tfrd-1/79/2015-16,Dated 24.08.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Assessing Officer) Under Section143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”], Dated 31.03.2015. 2. Grievances Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:

68,190/-, on 29.09.2012. The same was processed by accepting the returned income. Consequent to selection of the assessee`s case for scrutiny, statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, dated 12.08.2013 was issued to the assessee. A notice under 142(1) dated 03.07.2014 was issued calling for basic documents and details. In response

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

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 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. Mr.Patel pointed out that this aspect has been well-considered by the Tribunal. 13. Mr.Patel, in support of his submissions, has placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-II v. Dhiraj R.Rungta (Tax Appeal No. 1152 of 2011, decided on 26th

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)

68 and u/s 69 of the Act, respectively. Further there was no show cause for charging of tax at 30% as per the mandate of section 115BBE of the Act. Thus, Assessing Officer has violated ITA No.73/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar principal of natural justice. In this regard, ld Counsel relied on the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case

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. We further observed that the ld. CIT (A) has examined each and 19. every creditors/ lenders and given his factual findings of enquiry DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat Vs. Kejriwal Industries Ltd.,/ITA No.1509/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 Page 38 of 49 report as well as facts of each lenders

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

section 131 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer had in his possession the confirmation of creditors containing their PAN number, name and address and amount repaid during the year, bank statement and ledger account of these creditors/ temporary loan depositors. However, the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. This way, ld Counsel stated that assessee has submitted

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

section 131 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer had in his possession the confirmation of creditors containing their PAN number, name and address and amount repaid during the year, bank statement and ledger account of these creditors/ temporary loan depositors. However, the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. This way, ld Counsel stated that assessee has submitted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.2(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S GALAXI FILAMENTS, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.35/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Galaxy Filaments Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Room 13-14, Sanskruti Industrial Vs. 6Th No.612, Floor, Aayakar Estate, Nr. Diamond Rose Bhavan, Nr. Majura Gate, Surat- Nursery, Laskana, Surat-395013 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapfg 6252 M (Assessee ) (Respondent)

section 68 and various case-laws, contended that assessee had duly discharged its duty by establishing identity, creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions and assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of the source. This way, ld Counsel defended the order passed by ld CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused

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

DIVA DIAMONDS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.128/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), 302, Gokul Building, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Srt/2020 [Arising In Ita No.128/Srt/2020] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of 302, Gokul Building, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.313/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Principal Cit-1,Surat 1St 302, Gokul Building, Room No.123, Floor, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Act, on 23.12.2016, determining total income at Rs.11,74,02,610/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT vs. DIVA DIAMONDS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.128/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), 302, Gokul Building, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Srt/2020 [Arising In Ita No.128/Srt/2020] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of 302, Gokul Building, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.313/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Principal Cit-1,Surat 1St 302, Gokul Building, Room No.123, Floor, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Act, on 23.12.2016, determining total income at Rs.11,74,02,610/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

74,57,986 3. The Assessing Officer further recorded that assessee has debited expenses of Rs.16,27,148/- on account of loan processing charges. On perusal of details in return of income, the Assessing Officer noted that there is no secured loan reflected therein. The assessee was asked to explain the fact. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee

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

section 37(1)/ 68 / 69A of the Act merely on the basis of statement of third party which cannot be considered in case of assessee. 9. On merit, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that during assessment as well as before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished complete evidence to prove the genuineness of transaction, identity of party