MS. SHREE WAHEGURU FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,RING ROAD, SURAT vs. PCIT , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shree Waheguru Fashions Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd., B-1110, Radha Krishna Vs. Income-Tax (Central), Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar - 395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcs 9568 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, [including,- (i) An order enhancing or modifying the assessment

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), 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.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

prices in nothing but a Penny stock. If the assessee would have indulged the sale of SAL shares as a Penny stock, then it would not have retained 27,45,430 shares which is more than 2/3rd of its holding of the SAL shares. Thus the findings of the Ld AO are found to be baseless with cogent materials

KIRTIPRADA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer made by assessee or payment of alleged commission by assessee to any entry operator. With regard to observation made by assessing officer in para 15 of assessment order that notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act returned unserved in case of 2 investors and no reply is received from 3rd investor, it is submitted by ld Counsel that

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

260/-.The case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee produced sale invoice of Raghuveer Jari from whom the assessee purchased Jari worth of Rs.7,30,390/- in cash. The Assessing Officer issued notice to the parties under section 133(6) of the Act and deputed inspector of his ward to conduct