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

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

85,006/-. 7. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted written submission before the assessing officer, vide assessee`s letter dated 22.12.2018, to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee stated before the assessing officer that transaction was done through Broker. The valid contract note was issued by the Broker. The STT was paid on the transaction and moreover

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

85,006/-. 7. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted written submission before the assessing officer, vide assessee`s letter dated 22.12.2018, to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee stated before the assessing officer that transaction was done through Broker. The valid contract note was issued by the Broker. The STT was paid on the transaction and moreover

JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

85,006/-. 7. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted written submission before the assessing officer, vide assessee`s letter dated 22.12.2018, to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee stated before the assessing officer that transaction was done through Broker. The valid contract note was issued by the Broker. The STT was paid on the transaction and moreover

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

68 of the I.T. Act,1961 without acknowledging the submission of the assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of Assessing Office in making addition of Rs.3,406/- as unexplained expenditure

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

68 of the I.T. Act,1961 without\nacknowledging the submission of the assessee.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the\nsubject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of Assessing\nOffice in making addition of Rs.3,406/- as unexplained expenditure u/s\n69C

HARISHBHAI G. CHOVATIYA,SARTHANA, SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.486/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Harishbhai G Chovatiya Income Tax Officer, 18, Bapa Sitaram Row House, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat, Vs Kamrej Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Sarthana, Majura Gate, Surat- 394101 Surat-395001 Pan No: Agdpc 6539 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 68. The assessee further submitted that cash-in-hand was generated out of loan availed from bank accounts and the source was established. The assessee has obtained a loan of Rs.36.00 lakh which was disbursed in bank account No. 34670600000548 and Rs.8,85

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

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

85,701 Carting/material Carting purchase Total 2,74,57,986 2,74,57,986 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

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

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

SHRI PRAKASH KAKALDAS SHAH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this part of ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Prakash Kakaldas Shah, The Ito, Ward-1(3)(4), 702, Sterling Apartment, Nr. Priya Surat. Vs. Hotel, Athwagate, Surat – 395003. Pan : Abips4373F Appellant Respondednt

85,930/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. On verification of detail furnished by assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that besides other income, the 2 Prakash Kakaldas Shah assessee has shown brokerage income of Rs.2,39,200/- and rental income of Rs.2,25,00/-. The assessee was asked to furnish name, PAN and address of the parties from whom brokerage

CHIMANBHAI A. KANTESARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Income Tax Officer A-54, Trikam Nagar Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Aaykar Vs Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, 395006 Surat-395001 Pan : Abepp 7380 D Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) while passing the assessment order. The show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act was served upon the assessee. The Assessing 2 Sh.Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Officer recorded that neither the assessee appeared nor filed any written explanation. The Assessing Officer held

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

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)

section 68, namely identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, have not been satisfied by the assessee. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to furnish basic documents, as required by assessing officer, which is mentioned in para 16 of this order, before the assessing officer. Therefore, we set aside the order

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)

section 68, namely identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, have not been satisfied by the assessee. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to furnish basic documents, as required by assessing officer, which is mentioned in para 16 of this order, before the assessing officer. Therefore, we set aside the order

A.M. SUPPLIERS (P) LTD,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) A.M. Suppliers (P) Ltd., I.T.O., Shop No. 1, Rajhans Building, Ward-1(1)(1), Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002. Surat. Pan No. Aadca 3136 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68,141/- whereas in this year, the assessee has shown cash in hand of Rs. 58,26,495/-. The cash receipt in the month of October 2016 was shown of more than Rs. 22,32,859/- whereas in the preceding year, it was less than Rs. 8,85,037/-. Monthly cash expenses of assessee is around