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)

section 68 of the Act was brought w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and is not retrospective as held by Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 1613 of 2014] (Mum HC) and PCIT vs. Apeak Infotech – [2017] 397 ITR 148 (Bombay) ITA No.435/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Sejal Jewellers

THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. PANKAJ ENKA PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

section 68, namely, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and share premium received by it from share subscribers companies. 13. We note that ld CIT(A) in his appellate order has discussed each share applicant company. The various inquiries conducted by the AO in regard to these three investor companies and the assessee’s submission

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

Section 68 of the Act. Furthermore, we have to note that more than 90 appeals were allowed by the Tribunal

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

Section 68 of the Act. Furthermore, we have to note that more than 90 appeals were allowed by the Tribunal

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

Section 68 of the Act. Furthermore, we have to note that more than 90 appeals were allowed by the Tribunal

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

Section 68 of the Act. Furthermore, we have to note that more than 90 appeals were allowed by the Tribunal

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

Section 68 of the Act.\nFurthermore, we have to note that more than 90 appeals were allowed by the\nTribunal

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, SURAT vs. ELLSONS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1485/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Ellsons Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2/2222, 2Nd Floor, Avichal Krupa, Nagar Surat. Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacce5530E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri O.P. Vaishnav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cas- 3/Trfd-1/404/2015-16, Dated 31.03.2017, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”], Dated 31.03.2015. The Grievances Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “1.Whether, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Facts & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Unexplained Share Application & Share Premium Amounting To Rs. 4,50,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Company Could Not Satisfy The Creditworthiness, Identity Of The Alleged Investors & Genuineness Of Transaction Remained Unexplained? 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer. 3. It Is, Therefore, Prayed That The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) May Be Set Aside & That Of Assessing Office May Be Restored To The Above Extent.” Assessment Years.2012-13

90 400000 3600000 4000000 LTD High School, Kalbadevi. Mumbai - 400002. Total 450000 4500000 40500000 45000000 In questionnaire vide notice dated 30/10/2014 u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, the assessee was required to furnish details and supporting material to establish the identity, genuineness of transaction and source creditworthiness in respect of addition to share capital and receipt of share premium

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

90,274 merely on account of cash entries. 12. In the facts of the case, the AO has committed an error of law by adding that amount under s. 68 of the Act of 1961 straight-away merely because of the reason that the genuineness of the transaction shown in the heading of the sundry creditors was not found genuine

DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. QUANT CAPITAL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., M/S Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vapi Circle, 612-617, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3142 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., M/S Quant Capital Private Limited Vapi Circle, 612-617, Makers Chambers Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3159 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 68 of the Act, while passing the assessment order. 3. Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed its written submissions. The submissions of assessee is duly recorded in para 3.2 of order of ld. CIT(A). In the submissions, the assesse submitted that during

DCIT, VAPI CIRCLE , VAPI vs. M/S. QCAP SECURITIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., M/S Qcap Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vapi Circle, 612-617, Maker Chamber Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3142 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., M/S Quant Capital Private Limited Vapi Circle, 612-617, Makers Chambers Iv, Vs. Vapi. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 New Address; 6Th Floor, Sea Breeze Building, Appasaheb Marrathe Marg, Prabha Devi,Mumbai-25 Pan No. Aaacq 3159 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 68 of the Act, while passing the assessment order. 3. Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed its written submissions. The submissions of assessee is duly recorded in para 3.2 of order of ld. CIT(A). In the submissions, the assesse submitted that during

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

68 of the Act, hence, these are being considered together. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Return of 7. Income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.5, 14, 26,940/- which was assessed for the year under consideration. The AO finalized the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) on 31.03.2014 by making disallowance of Rs.4

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. SMT. FALGUNI SANDIPKUMAR NAIK, SURAT

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 19, 20 & Ita 659/Srt/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court)

68. As recorded above, before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. In the written submissions, it was stated that the ld. CIT(A) asked the assessee to furnish her remand report. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer again issued notice to all the 26 creditors. The Assessing officer furnished remand report vide his letter dated

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3) SURAT vs. MEGA COLLECTIONS PVT LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.311/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. Mega Collections Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 38-39, Kamla Estate, Gitanjali Petrol Pump, Varachha Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagcm3809C

68 of the Act for unexplained Share capital + Share Premium and unsecured loan as the decision of the Hon'ble 1TAT, Surat in assessee's own case on similar issue for the A.Y 2012-13 has not been accepted by the department and further appeal have been filed before the Hon'ble High Court where decision is pending

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

90,274 merely on account of cash entries. 12. In the facts of the case, the assessing officer has committed an error of law by adding that amount under s. 68 of the Act of 1961 straight-away merely because of the reason that the genuineness of the transaction shown in the heading of the sundry creditors was not found

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

90,274 merely on account of cash entries. 12. In the facts of the case, the assessing officer has committed an error of law by adding that amount under s. 68 of the Act of 1961 straight-away merely because of the reason that the genuineness of the transaction shown in the heading of the sundry creditors was not found

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

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

90,672/- being advance from customers considered by the AO as unexplained Credit under Section 68 of the Act. The advance