RAMBILASH RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') both on\n26.12.2018. In both the appeal the assessees have raised certain common\ngrounds of appeal, certain facts are also similar, thus, with the consent of the\nparties, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by\ncommon order

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

section 145(3) of the Act, are as follows: (i) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer

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

section 145(3) of the Act, are as follows: (i) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer

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

section 145(3) of the Act, are as follows: (i) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 195/SRT/2022, are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer

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

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 68 of the Act treating as bogus creditors/unexplained creditors. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was repeatedly requested to produce the books of accounts including purchase bills, purchase register, vouchers etc., but the assessee failed to do so. In the audit report at point No.9(b) Annexure-I) the auditor has specifically mentioned that

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

THE ITO, WARD - 3(2)(2),, SURAT vs. SHRI POPATBHAI RANCHHODBHAI BHADANI,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.585/Ahd/2016/Srt & Co. No. 63/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2011-12 1. Income Tax Officer, Vs 1. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat Bhadani, House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R Vs 2. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai 2.Income Tax Officer, Bhadani, Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68 of the Act. 3. Succinct facts are that the assessee has obtained unsecured loan from various parties as detailed below: S.No Name PAN Amount Mode 1 Rambhaben P. Bhadani ADUPB6997L 3,00,000 Chq 2 Varshaben V. Bhadani AJOPB5252C 5,00,000 Chq 3 Ranjanaben B. Kalathia AJSPK9080D 3,00,000 Chq 4 Jignesh R. Bhadani APFPB9995R

SHRI CHANDUBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI BORAD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chandubhai Parshottambhai Income Tax Officer, Borad, 162, 163, Akshardham Ward-3(3)(5), Surat, Vs Society, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Varachha Road, Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No: Ajfpb 2959 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 68 of the Act. 4. On other issue of agricultural income, Assessing Officer held that in earlier assessment year, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.1,58,400/-, however, in the current assessment year agricultural income has shown at Rs.4,46,100/- and no reason is given for substantial increase in agricultural income. The Assessing Officer further

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 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

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 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

KHAZANA BAZAR PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(3), 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.335/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward- C-104, Radha Raman Textile 1(1)(3), Surat, Room No.113, Market, Saroli,Surat-395010 Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck 0726 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

68.” 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is a Private Limited Company and engaged in business of trading of sarees and dress materials. The assessee-company filed its return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2015-16 on ITA No.335/SRT/2022/AY.2015-16 Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd. 02.10.2015, declaring total income at Rs.4

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 68. To support his submission, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT Vs Montage Enterprises Limited (2018) 100 taxmann.com 100 (SC) wherein the decision of Delhi High Court in PCIT Vs Montage Enterprises Limited (2018) 100 taxmann.com 99 (Del), decision of Kolkata High Court in PCIT Vs Datta

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 68. To support his submission, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT Vs Montage Enterprises Limited (2018) 100 taxmann.com 100 (SC) wherein the decision of Delhi High Court in PCIT Vs Montage Enterprises Limited (2018) 100 taxmann.com 99 (Del), decision of Kolkata High Court in PCIT Vs Datta

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT vs. BINDAL SILK MILLS PVT. LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.113 & 114/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Bindal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., 270, Bindal House, Kadodara Char Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Room No.108, Rasta, Nr. Kumbharia Bus Stand, Surat- 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura 394210 Gate, Surat -395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb 9519 Q (Applicant ) (Respondent)

81,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act as the assessee has failed to prove bona fide of the transaction within the meaning of Section

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT vs. BINDAL SILK MILLS PVT. LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.113 & 114/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 &2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Bindal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., 270, Bindal House, Kadodara Char Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Room No.108, Rasta, Nr. Kumbharia Bus Stand, Surat- 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura 394210 Gate, Surat -395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb 9519 Q (Applicant ) (Respondent)

81,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act as the assessee has failed to prove bona fide of the transaction within the meaning of Section

SAI PETROLEUM,SURAT vs. PR.CIT, -1, SURAT

In the result, grounds no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.116/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sai Petroleum Principal Commissioner Of 381, Survey No.415, Sachin, Income-Tax-1, Rom 123, Vs Surat-394230 Aayakhar Bhawan, Majura Pan No: Achfs 8318 Q Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ketan S. Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 15.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Ads Made By Ld. Ao As Per Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. Sai Petroleum I. Addition U/S 68 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act Amounting To Rs.13,65,241 As Unreconciled Cash Deposited In Bank Accounted As Cash Sales During Demonetization Period. Ii. Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.10,00,000 Received From Debtors As Unaccounted Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period.

68,02,582/- of valid currency and old currency respectively. Please clarify the difference in this regard. (iii) During the course of survey proceedings you claimed to receive the cash of 17,81,846/- from M/s Swastik Transport Udhna and M/s Swastik Logistic Udhna. Please provide the copy 4 Sai Petroleum of ledger account of both the partis with complete