CHIRAGBHAI S. GADHIYA,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. PAN No. AJYPG 7927 K Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Miss Chaitali Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 31/05/2023 Date of pronouncement 28/07/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income

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 I.T., which is placed on the assessee, shifts as soon as the assessee establishes the authenticity of transactions as executed between the assessee and its creditors. It is no part of the assessee's burden to prove either the genuineness of the transactions executed between the creditors and the sub-creditors

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 I.T., which is placed on the assessee, shifts as soon as the assessee establishes the authenticity of transactions as executed between the assessee and its creditors. It is no part of the assessee's burden to prove either the genuineness of the transactions executed between the creditors and the sub-creditors

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

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. Facts in these years are almost similar except variation in additions or disallowances, therefore, with the consent of parties, these three appeals were clubbed, heard together and are being decided by this consolidated order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, the appeal for the A.Y. 2012-13 is treated as a “lead case

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

DY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2, SURAT vs. M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO., SURAT

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

68 employees are working and their total salary debited for the year is Rs. 31,07,326/- . On the basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions. Before us, no contrary fact or evidence or any law is brought to our notice by the ld. CIT-DR except relying on the order of Assessing Officer. Thus

M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

68 employees are working and their total salary debited for the year is Rs. 31,07,326/- . On the basis of such observation, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions. Before us, no contrary fact or evidence or any law is brought to our notice by the ld. CIT-DR except relying on the order of Assessing Officer. Thus

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)

68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has restricted the addition at @ 5% of unverifiable purchases observing as follows: “8.8 In interest of principles of uniformity and consistency the same decision is taken in the instant appeal. The AR has also raised this

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)

68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has restricted the addition at @ 5% of unverifiable purchases observing as follows: “8.8 In interest of principles of uniformity and consistency the same decision is taken in the instant appeal. The AR has also raised this

VASUDEV RAMPRASAD BHATTAR (HUF),SURAT vs. PR. CIT, SURAT - 1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Court Hearing) Vasudev Ramprasad Bhattar Vs The Principal Commissioner Of (Huf), Income Tax -1, 2010-11, Vaibhav Apartment, Surat. Bhatar Road, Surat-395007. Pan : Aafhv9911C Appellant Respondednt

79,200/- at National Multi Commodities Exchange. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer made his belief that income of assessee to that extent has escaped assessment. The notice under section 148, dated 31.03.2018 was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer recorded that despite services of notice under section 148, the assessee has not filed

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

KEVINBHAI JAYANTIBHAI VADODARIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal field by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

79,250/- under section 68 of the Act and also charged to tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved

MUKESH KEDIA HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

79 lakhs was made, under section 68 of the Act, on account of unexplained cash credits in the assessee

SHRI NATHALAL H. PARMAR,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.921/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri Nathalal H. Parmar, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 301, Yogi Park, Plot No. 95, Income-Tax, Kanteshwar Society No.3, Circle -8, Surat. Katargam, Surat 395006 [Pan: Ambpp 9631 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Mehul Shah - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Mrs. Anupama Singla - Sr.D.R. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 13.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2020 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat (In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 12.12.2015 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143 (3) Dated 29.12.2010 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle–8, Surat (In Short “The Ao”).

section 68 of the Act. 9. Succinctly, facts as culled out from the orders of lower authorities are that the assessee has filed bank statement of Akhand Anand Co- operative Bank Ltd., which reflected cash deposits of Rs.14,75,000/-. The assessee submitted that deposits are out of unsecured loan taken from various persons in the course of business

YOGESHKUMAR BABUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Yogeshkumar Babubhai Patel, I.T.O., 48, Rajput Faliya, Kumbhariya Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Gam, Punagam, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Anmpp 0363 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 of the Act on the ground that the income for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20 is less than the year under consideration. Agricultural activities is depending on seasonal conditions, nature and factors of rain and irrigation. If the Assessing Officer was not satisfied, he should have calculated agricultural income based on data of other years. The assessee also

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68,79,750 shares having face value @ Rs.10/- and share premium @ Rs.10/- out of such share, the assessee’s total ITA Nos30&58/SRT/2020 (A.Y.13-14) M/s Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd. 22,13,000 shares at the same rate premium to one of its Director, namely, Pawan Begani. On further verification of source of investment, it was noted by Assessing Officer