CHIRAGBHAI S. GADHIYA,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS form was furnished. On the basis of aforesaid submission, the assessee requested to delete the addition under Section 68

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS deducted on interest payment and the proof of repayment. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction of loan as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS deducted on interest payment and the proof of repayment. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction of loan as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS deducted on interest payment and the proof of repayment. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction of loan as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS deducted on interest payment and the proof of repayment. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction of loan as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS and loans were repaid in subsequent years through account payee cheques, addition, u/s. 68 o the Act cannot be made. (vii) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mod Creations (P) Ltd. V. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 0282 has held that the assessee had filed copies of returns, statement of income, balance sheet

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS and loans were repaid in subsequent years through account payee cheques, addition, u/s. 68 o the Act cannot be made. (vii) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mod Creations (P) Ltd. V. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 0282 has held that the assessee had filed copies of returns, statement of income, balance sheet

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

section 68 of the Act by the AO. Au contraire, the learned counsel for the assessee referred para 12. No. 8.2 (vii) at Page No. 10 of assessment order and submitted that DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat Vs. Kejriwal Industries Ltd.,/ITA No.1509/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 Page 26 of 49 the AO has observed that the ACIT-TDS

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J B SYNTEX 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.140/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2023

section 68 of the Act. 26. On appeal, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition, therefore Revenue is in appeal before us. Learned DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. On the other hand

SHRI BALAJI J BHAGNURE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Balaji J. Bhagnure Income Tax Officer, 98, Santkrupa Society, In Ward-2(3)(1) Aayakar Vs Lane Of Mahadev Mandir, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Godadara Devadh Road, Surat-395001 Godadara, Surat-394210 Pan No: Alkpb 8794 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 27.12.2022 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [For Short To As “Nfac/ Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 26.07.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 11.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Reopening Assessment By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The I.T. Act 1961. Sh. Balaji J Bhagnure 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The I.T. Act.

TDS was made @ 10% under section 194C. The receipt is nominal and the income of assessee was below taxable limit. Thus, the issuance of notice under section 148 was not valid. 4. For non-compliance of notice of Assessing Officer, the assessee explained that assessee (he) is a small person and is not well versed with income tax matters. Therefore

BSAS INFOTECH LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 68 of the Act, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has after appreciation of evidence placed on record by the assessee during the course of appeal proceedings has deleted the additions. During appeal, the assessee was able to produce the confirmation from the creditors in support of genuineness of the transaction, loan agreement with

BSAS INFOTECH LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 68 of the Act, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has after appreciation of evidence placed on record by the assessee during the course of appeal proceedings has deleted the additions. During appeal, the assessee was able to produce the confirmation from the creditors in support of genuineness of the transaction, loan agreement with

BSAS INFORTECH LIMITED, SURAT,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 68 of the Act, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has after appreciation of evidence placed on record by the assessee during the course of appeal proceedings has deleted the additions. During appeal, the assessee was able to produce the confirmation from the creditors in support of genuineness of the transaction, loan agreement with

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 and not under section 69C of the Act thereby found genuine real and direct expenses though the books of assessee were not rejected. The Assessing Officer accepted the liability as a trading result because some of the parties have not responded to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act. The 7 M/s M.D. House Build Assessing Officer

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

TDS made on such interest and the amount received and repaid during the year. Such details are recorded by ld CITA) at page No. 18 & 19 of his order. The assessee also stated that the assessing officer considered only peak of all transaction and made addition of Rs. 4.15 Crore in AY 2010-11 and Rs. 2.14 Crore

TRIVIDH CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.86/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Trividh Corporation, Vs. The Pcit, Surat. Tp No.25, Fp No.103, Aashtha Medicare & Residency, Abrama Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahft0894N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. T. Bidari, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Grievances Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Principal Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Invoke Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act & Finally ‘Set-Aside’ Ao’S Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Also Direct The Ao To Frame The Assessment ‘Denovo’.” 2. The Relevant Material Facts, As Culled Out From The Material On Record, Are As Follows. The Assessee Before Us Is A Firm. It Has Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2015-16 On 13.10.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs. 4,42,80,220/-. The Assessee`S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Project Development Activities. The Id Assessing Assessment Years.2015-16 Trividh Corporation Officer (Herein After Referred To ‘Ao’) Finalized The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, On 11.12.2017, Accepting The Returned Income Of The Assessee.

68, section 69, section 69A, section 696, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent. Despite such facts and circumstances and specific provisions of law in section 115BBE(2) of the Act, Assessing Officer has completed assessment determining total income at Rs.4,42,80,220/- and thereby allowing your erroneous claim to the tune of Rs.32

M/S. HIREN SILK MILLS,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2271/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Hiren Silk Mills, V The Income Tax Officer, 6625/1, Road No.66, A/6, Gidc, S Ward-1(2)(2), Surat. Sachin, Surat. . [Pan: Aadfh 5929 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Stay Petition No.01/Srt/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2271/Ahd/2016) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Hiren Silk Mills, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Surat. 6625/1, Road No.66, A/6, Gidc, S Sachin, Surat. . [Pan: Aadfh 5929 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 68 - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]. 9. On the other hand, the ld.Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the orders of Revenue Authorities. 10. We have heard both the Counsels and perused the material placed on records, judgments cited by the parties as well as orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. From the records, we noticed that the ld.AO

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

68 as unexplained credit amounts to double taxation of the same income. The said situation has been upheld in latest Apex Court Judgment of Montage Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 100 (SC) and other decisions. The Honorable CIT(A) has also relied on the said decisions as mentioned in last para of the Appellate order challenged by the revenue