ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S RUSHABH INTERNATIONAL , NAVSARI

In the result, all three C

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram S. Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2012-13

price in case of bogus purchase. It was also submitted ITA 347,349,350/SRT/2018 CO 9 to 11/SRT/2018 by the Ld. Sr. DR that the Assessing Officer had made a categorical comment in page 7 of the assessment order that the books of accounts and vouchers etc. could not be accepted when search is conducted and large scale bogus havala

SHRIFAL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus- Tribunal held that entire quantity of opening stock, purchases and quantity manufactured were sold by the assessee thus finished goods were purchased by assessee, may be not from the parties shown in accounts, but from other sources-Thus not entire amount, but profit margin embedded m such amount would be subjected to tax-Held” c) CIT vs. President Industries

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus- Tribunal held that entire quantity of opening stock, purchases and quantity manufactured were sold by the assessee thus finished goods were purchased by assessee, may be not from the parties shown in accounts, but from other sources-Thus not entire amount, but profit margin embedded m such amount would be subjected to tax-Held” c) CIT vs. President Industries

SHRIFAL IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(3), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus- Tribunal held that entire quantity of opening stock, purchases and quantity manufactured were sold by the assessee thus finished goods were purchased by assessee, may be not from the parties shown in accounts, but from other sources-Thus not entire amount, but profit margin embedded m such amount would be subjected to tax-Held” c) CIT vs. President Industries

SMT. MUKTABEN NISHANTBHAI PATEL,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

purchase price shown by the assessee. It is evident that when at the time of booking of LTCG the share price tremendously on a higher side and thereby bogus gains were booked those who have huge profit can avail LTCG to set off their profit. The entire process was managed by operator who works for commission, the beneficiary who wants

SHRI NISHANT KANTILAL PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

purchase price shown by the assessee. It is evident that when at the time of booking of LTCG the share price tremendously on a higher side and thereby bogus gains were booked those who have huge profit can avail LTCG to set off their profit. The entire process was managed by operator who works for commission, the beneficiary who wants

SHRI NISHANT KANTILAL PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

purchase price shown by the assessee. It is evident that when at the time of booking of LTCG the share price tremendously on a higher side and thereby bogus gains were booked those who have huge profit can avail LTCG to set off their profit. The entire process was managed by operator who works for commission, the beneficiary who wants

RAHUL KALUBHAI KAKADIA,VARACHHA vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(4), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Rahul Kalubhai Kakadia Income Tax Officer 59,Vishnu Nagar-1, Ankur Ward-3(3)(4), Surat Vs Chowkdi, Nr. Mini Bazar, A.K.Road, Varachha, Surat- 395 008 Pan Aolpk 7873 G Nvbunha@Yahoo.Co.In Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

bogus purchase. The assessee filed his reply dated 22.12.2016 and submitted that delivery challans for transfer of goods and submitted that assessee cannot be faulty if the inspector could not find out the parties as their given addresses. On the show cause notice, entire disallowance of assessee stated that assessee has earned only 6.67% of gross profit from his trading

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MAHAVEER SHANTILAL JAIN, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

bogus purchases, observing as follows: “10.1.7 It is further seen that the Honorable Gujarat High Court in the cases decided subsequent to N K Proteins ltd (supra) has not followed it, viz in the cases of Jagdish H. Patel, TA No.411 of 2017 dtd 01/08/2017 (8% disallowance) and TEJUA ROHITKUMAR KAPADIA, Surat in TA No. 691/2017 dated 18.09.2017 (0% disallowance

ACIT, CC-3, SURAT vs. SHRI NARESH NEMCHAND SHAH, 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.197/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Cir.-3, Vs. Naresh Nemchand Shah, Surat. Abhishek House, Bh. Jeevan Bharti School, Kadampali Society, Nanpura, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrps 0182 J (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

Price Purchase Transfer Exempt u/s.10(38) Company /year Cost/year Expenses Bakra Pratisth an 26454750 1500000 0 24954750 Limited The assessing officer observed that trading done by the assessee in the scripts of Bakra Pratisthan Limited who has poor fundamentals and is not doing any significant business activities since its inception. Moreover, trading in the above mentioned scripts has been done

TARACHAND MOHANLAL AGARWAL,SURAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SURAT-01, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kambletarachand Mohanlal Agarwal, The Principal Commissioner Vs. D-509, Shreepal Residency, Of Income Tax-1, Near Corner Point, Surat. City Light Road, Surat-395007. [Pan : Aazpa7937K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hiren Vepari, Ar Respondent By: Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

bogus purchases. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. This fact has been confirmed as per the grounds taken by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). The similar matter is taken by the Ld.PCIT under section 263 for taxing the same as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 263. Revision of orders prejudicial

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

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

transfer deed. Hence it is clear that there was\nno requirement of DEMAT during the period when the assessee purchased the shares\ni.e back in the year 2003. However, the assessee has submitted the holding Statement\nas on 31.03.2004 which reflects that the assessee had the shares of Global Capital\nMarket in possession and was held in its demat account

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

price. Here in this case, we have given example of one of the Tax Appeal wherein the shares were purchased in the year 2004 and were sold in the year 2006, which is said to be one of the case wherein the gap in the purchase and sale of the shares was narrowest. In other cases as we have noticed

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT, ADAJAN vs. CHUNIBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA, ADARSH NAGAR SOCIETY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

price. Here in this case, we have given example of one of the Tax Appeal wherein the shares were purchased in the year 2004 and were sold in the year 2006, which is said to be one of the case wherein the gap in the purchase and sale of the shares was narrowest. In other cases as we have noticed

THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VAPI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

bogus purchases. Similarly in CIT Vs Kashiram Textile Mills Pvt Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble High Court held that there was no material on record to conclude that in addition to the alleged fictitious purchases there were also some other purchases for the same material under 24 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 different invoices

N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

bogus purchases. Similarly in CIT Vs Kashiram Textile Mills Pvt Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble High Court held that there was no material on record to conclude that in addition to the alleged fictitious purchases there were also some other purchases for the same material under 24 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 different invoices

SMT. KANCHANBEN PRAVINBHAI SHETH,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

GAUTAM PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH HUF,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made