DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

68,14,187/- made by the Assessing Officer, by estimating the profit at the rate of 20% on alleged unaccounted job receipts of Rs.8,40,70,795/- to Rs.42,03,547/- by holding that it is reasonable to consider at the rate of 5% as net profit on the alleged unaccounted job receipts. (iii). IT(SS)A No.70/SRT/2021- Assessee Appeal

KIRTIPRADA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 is prospective and applicable only from assessment year 2013-14. With this background, now we shall proceed to examine in the assessee`s case under consideration, whether assessee has discharged his onus to prove, prima facie, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and share premium received by it from share subscribers companies

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6.Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the penalty on estimated addition and confirmed the penalty in respect of sundry creditors, observing as follows: “On merits of penalty levied by the AO, I find that the penalty

SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 6.Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the penalty on estimated addition and confirmed the penalty in respect of sundry creditors, observing as follows: “On merits of penalty levied by the AO, I find that the penalty

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

68, 69, 69B and 69C deem for the purpose of assessment was injected for the purpose of penalty by operation of a deemed provision. A proviso was added to new Explanation. It concerns cases where the assessee offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate. Consequentially, the provision is intended to save such amount from imposition of penalty

SHRI SABBIRBHAI DAWOODBHAI SHAIKH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Sabbirbhai Dawoodbhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shaikh, 3(1)(4), Anavil Business Vs 7/4539, Galemandi, Centre, Adajan, Surat- Lakkad Kot, 395009 Surat Pan : Aeqps 5688 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

68,750/- and not Rs.51,37,500/-. Secondly, the assessee purchased NHAI Bonds of Rs.10 lakh and not Rs.5 lakh on sale of such property.The assessee stated that there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee and that notice under section 148 reliable to be quashed. The assessee made reference to Addl. CIT, Range

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)

9 Rajendrabhai R Desai declared at the time of search, survey and also the addition made by the assessing officer. 12. The case of the assessee is this that the amendment in Section 115BBE came into force only on 15.12.2016 whereas the search was conducted on 21.09.2016 and the assessee has paid tax @ 30%. The provision of Section

SAMIR S MEHTA,MAHARASHTRA vs. CIT (A)-4, 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.42/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Samir Shantilal Mehta, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, 1003, 10Th Floor, Sagardeep, South Surat. Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpm5453D (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Vartik Choksi & Biren Shah, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. However, in the present case in hand, additional income was offered and even addition was made on account of difference in the stock which was liable to be taxed under the head of income from business and profession only and valuation of stock was done

ITO, WARD-2(3)(2), SURAT, SURAT vs. KISHOR BHANUBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

68 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the notice under section 148A(b) had been issued pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal dated 04.05.2022, which is admittedly after 31.03.2022. Therefore, on both counts, the notice issued under section 148A[b] of the Act for the Asst. year

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

9 taxmann.com 1, (Delhi), Hon’ble Apex Court Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and in the case of Sumathy Dayal Vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that in such cases, principle was laid down that where entry of loan in a set of entities, mere furnishing certain details

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

9 taxmann.com 1, (Delhi), Hon’ble Apex Court Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and in the case of Sumathy Dayal Vs CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that in such cases, principle was laid down that where entry of loan in a set of entities, mere furnishing certain details

M/S. TIRUPATI ENERGY SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.573/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 M/S. Tirupati Energy Solution Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. , 1/B Ratnadham Ward- 2(1)(4) Surat Vinay Apartment , Ratnadham Sankhul Piplod Surat Pan: Aacct 7044 G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68 of the Act. Hence, addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT (A) may please be deleted. 4. Succinctly, facts as culled out from the orders of lower authorities are that the assessee company has filed its return of income on 11.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 39,600, which was processed under section 143(1

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. M/S. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68. Ground No. 1 of the appeal relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 1,80,43,284/- made on account of social forestry expenses. We find that this ground of appeal is similar to ground No. 1 in appeal for Assessment Year 2013- 14, which we have already dismissed by following the order of earlier years. Therefore, following

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68. Ground No. 1 of the appeal relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 1,80,43,284/- made on account of social forestry expenses. We find that this ground of appeal is similar to ground No. 1 in appeal for Assessment Year 2013- 14, which we have already dismissed by following the order of earlier years. Therefore, following

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

68. Ground No. 1 of the appeal relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 1,80,43,284/- made on account of social forestry expenses. We find that this ground of appeal is similar to ground No. 1 in appeal for Assessment Year 2013- 14, which we have already dismissed by following the order of earlier years. Therefore, following

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)

9. Learned DR for the Revenue further took us through the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, which reads as under: “Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. MILESTONE BUILDERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

9 3047/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs VIP Corporation, of Income Tax, . Block No.70, F.P.No.96, VIP A.Y. 2013-14 Circle-2(3), Surat – Road, Bhimrad. Dist-Sruat – 395 001. 395007. [PAN: AAJFV 3986 B] िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri Dhawal Mehta - CA राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by Shri Srinivas T.Bidari – Sr.DR Milestone Developers & Others

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SHANTINATH DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Nine Appeals of various assessee’s as listed above table at page 1 & 2 filed by the Revenue are dismissed

9 3047/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs VIP Corporation, of Income Tax, . Block No.70, F.P.No.96, VIP A.Y. 2013-14 Circle-2(3), Surat – Road, Bhimrad. Dist-Sruat – 395 001. 395007. [PAN: AAJFV 3986 B] िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri Dhawal Mehta - CA राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by Shri Srinivas T.Bidari – Sr.DR Milestone Developers & Others