ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR - 1(3), SURAT vs. RAJGREEN INFRALINK LLP, SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.257 & 375/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rajgreen Infralink Llp Deputy Commissioner Of 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-1(3) Nr. Choksi Wadi, New Rander Road, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Rajgreen Infralink Llp Vs Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Room No. 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Nagar, Nr. Choksi Wadi, Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, New Rander Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395009 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

68 of Rs.26.42 crores. The ld. CIT(A) while giving his finding categorised the lenders in three tables; in table-1, the Ld. CIT(A) considered the loan received from Amba V. Pandav, Bharat Ghoghari and Jyotshna Ghoghari of Rs.5.00 lakh each and noted that all three persons have filed their ITRs by showing taxable income below Rs.2.50 lakhs

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. R K SHAH PROJECTS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.55/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S R.K.Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aditya Complex, Nr. Tax., Circle-2(1)(1), Room No.216, Vs. Kapadia Health Club, Bhatar Road, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 8584 Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

801) (SC), The Apex Court held that where any sums found credited in the books of the assessee in any previous year, by virtue of Section 68

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

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

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

VISHWAS BUILDERS,OPERA PALACE vs. ACIT, CIR 2(2), SURAT, MAJURAGATE, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vishwas Builders, Acit, Cir 2(2), Laskana Kholvad Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Gujarat-395004. Vs. Majuragate, Surat-395001. Pan No. Aakfv 9174 A Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits is sustainable. deposits is sustainable. 5.1 The Assessing Officer observed deposit of the cash of The Assessing Officer observed deposit of the cash of The Assessing Officer observed deposit of the cash of maintained by the Rs.1,56,00,000/- in the in the two bank accounts main assessee firm

THE ITO, WARD -2(2)(2),, SURAT vs. SMT. HANSABEN BIPIINKUMAR KOTHARI,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.613/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt.Hansaben Bipinkumar Kothari, Ward-2(2)(2), Surat. 806-C, Kanaknidhi Apartment, Timliawad, Nanpura, Surat. [Pan: Adgpk 1894 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – Cit-Dr

Section 68 of the I.T.Act provides that where any sum is found credited on the books of assessee maintained for any year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. MANIDHARA REALTY LLP, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.327/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer Manidhara Realty Llp बनाम/ Ward-2(3)(1), Surat Room 501, International Business Centre, Vs. No.614, Aayakar Bhawan, Dumas Road, Piplod, Surat-395 0017 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abcfm 2991 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act that there existed surrounding circumstances and without applying the test of human probability as laid down in the case of Smt. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

68 of the Act was deleted. He also deleted the addition u/s 69C of the Act Rs.64,78,080/- in respect of unexplained commission paid on account of above LTCG. The CIT(A) has placed reliance on more than 50 decisions including the decisions as follows: (i) Shri Jitenddra Dalpatbhai Shah (ITA No.3105/Ahd/2009 ); (ii) CIT vs. Jitendra Dalpatbhai Shah

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

68 of the Act was deleted. He also deleted the addition u/s 69C of the Act Rs.64,78,080/- in respect of unexplained commission paid on account of above LTCG. The CIT(A) has placed reliance on more than 50 decisions including the decisions as follows: (i) Shri Jitenddra Dalpatbhai Shah (ITA No.3105/Ahd/2009 ); (ii) CIT vs. Jitendra Dalpatbhai Shah

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 SURAT, SURAT vs. KISHORKUMAR DHIRAJLAL KATHROTIYA, SURAT

Accordingly, Ground No.12 is partly allowed

section 115BBE is also incorrect, as the additions are relate to business income arising from the real estate project. Thus the Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 13. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 476/SRT/2023 is allowed. ITA No.531/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2018-19 14. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 4, SURAT vs. KISHORKUMAR DHIRAJLAL KATHROTIYA, SURAT

section 115BBE is also incorrect, as the additions are relate to business income arising from the real estate project. Thus the Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 13. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 476/SRT/2023 is allowed. ITA No.531/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2018-19 14. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue

KISHORKUMAR DHIRAJLAL KATHROTIYA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, , SURAT

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

section 115BBE is also incorrect, as the additions are relate to business income arising from the real estate project. Thus the Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 13. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 476/SRT/2023 is allowed. ITA No.531/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2018-19 14. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue

SANJAY SIVABHAGWAN KEYAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Sanjay Sivabhagwan Keyal Ito, Ward – 2(3)(4), Flat No.304, 3Rd Floor, Room No.613, Vatika Township, Near Model, Vs. Aaaykar Bhavan, Township, Parvat Patia Majura Gate, Surat - 395010. Surat - 395002. Pan No. Adspk 6097N Appellant Respondent

Section 68, by its very design, casts an initial and 68, by its very design, casts an initial and 68, by its very design, casts an initial and imperative duty upon the assessee to explain, with cogent evidence, imperative duty upon the assessee to explain, with cogent evidence, imperative duty upon the assessee to explain, with cogent evidence

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, ADAJAN, SURAT vs. SHRI ASFAQ HAJIYUNUS NOORANI, RANDER

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.716/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Asfaq Hajiyunus Noorani, Circle – 1(3), 1, Abdullah Park, Gorat Road, Surat Rander, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopn6148A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

section 68 of the Act and has relied on various decisions, i.e., Sumati Dayal, 214 ITR 801 (SC), CIT vs. Korlay

HEMLATA BABUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2, BARDOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1242/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Hemlata Babubhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Near St Depot, Surali Madhi, Ward – 2, Bardoli-394 340 Bardoli, Surat - 394340 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afipp7155A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2025

68 of the Act and taxed the same @ 60% u/s 115BBE of the Act. The AO determined the total income of Rs.26,54,140/- against the returned income of Rs.1,59,141/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) reproduced the submissions of the appellant, which are at pages

HEMANT NARESH AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

section 69B could be made, and was to be deleted. – Vide Pr. CIT vs. Gladder Ceramics Ltd. 2018 Tax Pub (DT) 463(Guj-HC) : (2018) 401ITR 205 (Guj). 1.8 The Respondent urges that the said digital data has no date, no details of any buyer or seller and it apparently shows that the statement is prepared by putting estimated