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 69A is not valid in law. Therefore, we dismiss this ground of the Revenue.” 11. The ld Counsel also argued that during demonetization period, the purchase and sale of the assessee was normal. During demonetization period the assessee`s sales was less as compared to previous month`s sales and all expenses of the assessee were normal

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 69A is not valid in law. Therefore, we dismiss this ground of the Revenue.” 11. The ld Counsel also argued that during demonetization period, the purchase and sale of the assessee was normal. During demonetization period the assessee`s sales was less as compared to previous month`s sales and all expenses of the assessee were normal

AALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.94/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Plot No.168, Udhyog Nagar Road, Udhna, Surat -394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8469M (Assessee) (Respondent)

3. Thereafter, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat [in short “the ld. PCIT”] has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On perusal of Scrutiny records, it was observed by ld PCIT that while computing disallowance u/s 14A by applying formula under Rule 8D item (iii) being percent of average investment, investment

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

92,820/-. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adjusting a sum of Rs. 11,51,038/- against demands outstanding in case of the appellant for various years. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

92,820/-. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adjusting a sum of Rs. 11,51,038/- against demands outstanding in case of the appellant for various years. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

92,820/-. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adjusting a sum of Rs. 11,51,038/- against demands outstanding in case of the appellant for various years. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

92,820/-. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adjusting a sum of Rs. 11,51,038/- against demands outstanding in case of the appellant for various years. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

92,820/-. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adjusting a sum of Rs. 11,51,038/- against demands outstanding in case of the appellant for various years. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

92,820/-. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adjusting a sum of Rs. 11,51,038/- against demands outstanding in case of the appellant for various years. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

92,820/-. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adjusting a sum of Rs. 11,51,038/- against demands outstanding in case of the appellant for various years. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

92,820/-. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adjusting a sum of Rs. 11,51,038/- against demands outstanding in case of the appellant for various years. The appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without

M/S. MAC INDUSTRIES,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1036/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S. Mac Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2407/2, Gidc, Sarigam, Ward-6, Vapi. Ta- Umbergaon, Valsad-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2011M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora - Ar Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [hereinafter refer to as the “Act”] for the assessment year 2009-10. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows:- “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming reopening

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

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

section 68 of the Act. It was revealed to the Assessing Officer that assessee had taken unsecured loans of the said amount from the following persons: - (1) Mit G. Shah - Rs. 5,75,000/-, (2) Sejal Shah - Rs. 67,30,000/-, (3) Shaan Leisure Ltd. - Rs. 1,07,05,000/-, (4) GSM Infra Projects Ltd. -Rs. 92

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

section 68 of the Act. It was revealed to the Assessing Officer that assessee had taken unsecured loans of the said amount from the following persons: - (1) Mit G. Shah - Rs. 5,75,000/-, (2) Sejal Shah - Rs. 67,30,000/-, (3) Shaan Leisure Ltd. - Rs. 1,07,05,000/-, (4) GSM Infra Projects Ltd. -Rs. 92

ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. SHRI FATEHSINH MOHANSINH CHAUHAN, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Fatehsinh Mohansinh Income-Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi Chauhan, Haveli, Vs Fortune Square-Ii, 7Th Floor, Swaminarayan Marg, Room No. 704, Daman Road, Silvassa-396230, Dadara Chala, Cvapi-396191 & Nagar Haveli Pan : Abppc 6997 C Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

68 of Rs. 2.26 Crore. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that notice under 8 Sh. Fatehsinh M Chauhan section 148 was issued within four years from the end of relevant assessment year. From record of the case the Assessing Officer found introduction of certain money, the identity of persons were not available on the record

M/S. UNITED SALT WORKS,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.208/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S United Salt Works Income Tax Officer, 9, Pruthvi Nagar, 1St Floor, Ward-1(3), 2Nd Floor, Above Vs Station Road, Bharuch- Bank Of Baroda Building, 392001 Station Road, Bharuch- Pan : Aaafu 4725 A 392001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

68,050/- on 27.03.2014 and both the payments were made in cash. I find that assessee has not disputed that expenses were paid against the liability. I find that on further there is no further dispute that DGVCL is a Company owned and controlled by Government of Gujarat. Further I find that genuineness of expenses is not doubted by Assessing