DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, 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.

9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.69/SRT/2021 and IT(SS)A No.70/SRT/2021, are dismissed. The Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 75/SRT/2021, IT(SS)A No.76/SRT/2021 and ITA No.52/SRT/2022 are also dismissed. 10. The common ground no.2, raised by the Revenue, is reproduced below for ready reference and adjudication. “2. Common Ground No.2

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.

9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.69/SRT/2021 and IT(SS)A No.70/SRT/2021, are dismissed. The Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS)A No. 75/SRT/2021, IT(SS)A No.76/SRT/2021 and ITA No.52/SRT/2022 are also dismissed. 10. The common ground no.2, raised by the Revenue, is reproduced below for ready reference and adjudication. “2. Common Ground No.2

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

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

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

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD.),VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.2886/Ahd/2010, 794/Ahd/2014 & 1769/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 बनाम M/S. Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Addl. Cit Range- ( Now Known As M/S. Bayer Vapi Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Private Limited) 306/3,Phase-Ii Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyer - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O. P. Singh Cit (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 26.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Three Appeals For The Assessment Year 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Dated 28.07.2010 & Dated 15.01.2014 Respectively Under The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] On The Direction Of Drp By The Addl. Cit Range-Vapi Range Vapi (Herein After Referred As The Ao) & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Dated 29.04.2016. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed As Under: It(Tp)A No.2886/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 2006-07/ By The Assessee: 2. Ground Nos.1 Is General In Nature & Do Not Require Adjudication.

68 taxmann.com 329 (Gujarat) held that payment of compensation made by the assessee-firm to retiring partner was to be treated as goodwill and , since , goodwill is an asset under Explanation 3 (b) to section 32 (1), assessee`s claim for depreciation on said payment was to be allowed. 33 Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. Now Bayer Vapi

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition even though no opportunity was given to the AO to examine the additional evidence furnished by assessee during appeal proceedings with respect to the addition of Rs.27,72,98,000/-. 3. On the basis of the facts

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition even though no opportunity was given to the AO to examine the additional evidence furnished by assessee during appeal proceedings with respect to the addition of Rs.27,72,98,000/-. 3. On the basis of the facts

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 regarding the genuineness of the transaction, stands fully satisfied by the assessee. 7.4 Now coming to the 3rd condition regarding the creditworthiness of the depositors, it is seen that out of the total loans of Rs. 1,83,56,149/-, an amount of Rs.1,63,38,904/- has been received from a single depositor viz. Smt. Binda

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 regarding the genuineness of the transaction, stands fully satisfied by the assessee. 7.4 Now coming to the 3rd condition regarding the creditworthiness of the depositors, it is seen that out of the total loans of Rs. 1,83,56,149/-, an amount of Rs.1,63,38,904/- has been received from a single depositor viz. Smt. Binda

NA vs. ARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN,NAVSARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.272/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, V The Income Tax Officer, Agiary Street, Malesar, Navsari S Exemption Ward, Surat. Taluka, Navsari – 396 445. . [Pan: Aaatn 6124 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri H.R.Vepari – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Vaishav – Cit - Dr

section 12A(2) of the Act is applicable retrospectively." 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal and are persuaded to be in agreement with the view taken therein. We thus finding no reason to take a different view, thus, are of the considered view that the first proviso of Sec. 12A(2

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 and Rs.1,50,000/- for commission on account of unexplained expenditure. The assessee company has filed its return of income on 13.09.2012 declaring therein total income of Rs. 31,940/-. The return of income was processed u/s143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, a notice u/s 143(2

MOHANBHAI RAGHAVBHAI BELADIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Mohanbhai Raghavbhai Beladiya, Vs. The Ito, 41-42, Vishnu Nagar Society – 1, Ward-3(2)(5), Ankur Char Rasta, A. K. Road, Surat Surat – 395008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aospb9227J (Assessee) (Respondent)

68. 4. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO ignoring the fact, that the assessee being an agriculturist and not having any business income is not bound to maintain books of accounts. 5. For that and under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erroneously passed order

DIYA FABRICS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, while appeal of the assessee is allowed, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Diya Fabrics, Vs. The Ito, 1418, Kohinoor Market, Ring Road, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat. Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfd3658A

section 68 of the Act in respect of the sundry creditors after making a detailed analysis, and on appeal by assessee, ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the assessing officer. Therefore, the conclusion Diya Fabrics reached by the Assessing Officer by treating the sundry creditors (which are linked with purchases) is bad in law and for that reliance

BHARGAV BHARATBHAI PANDYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 2(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhargav Bharatbhai Pandya, I.T.O., 61, Shubham Row House, Near Ward-2(1)(3), Vs. Sarasswati School, Honey Park Surat. Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Bcwpp 1537 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68 of the Act. 9. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue on the addition under Section 56(2

SHRI ANANDKUMAR RAWATRAM JOSHI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2112/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2007-08 & & I.T.A. No. 2135 /Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 Shri Anand Kumar Joshi Vs. Income Tax Officer, 407 Manoj Market Ring Road Ward- 2(2) Surat Surat 395002 Pan: Aelpj2447K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68,66,115 under section 40A(3)(b) for the assessment year 2007-08 is made by passing order under section 154 by observing that no notice under section 154 is required to be issued as the assessee has been heard while passing assessment order for the assessment year 2008-09 in set-aside proceedings. In view

ACIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Asst. Commissioner Of The Surat District Cricket Income-Tax (Exemptions), Association, Lalbhai Vs Circle-2, 6Th Floor, Room Contractor Stadium, Surat No.607, Aayakar Bhavan Dumas Road, Vesu, (Vejalpur), Prahlad Nagar Surat-395007 Road, Nr. Sachin Tower, Pan : Aaatt 6114 A Satellite,Ahmedabad-380 015 Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

68,620 + Rs.12,34,556/- i.e., Rs.67,03,176/- was also included in the total income of assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer again noted that in computation of income the assessee has claimed ‘application of income’ and claimed capital expenditure of Rs.2.19 crores. Since the assessee was treated as AOP and case of assessee is covered by first proviso