M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 during the year. 2. The ld CIT(A) has erred in laws and on facts in not directing the ld AO to give setoff of the undisclosed income admitted during survey of Rs. 1.50 Crore against the undisclosed income finally getting determined in the appellant’s case. Substituted Ground

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature and source of the share application received was fully explained by the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. The PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments were placed

BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature and source of the share application received was fully explained by the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. The PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments were placed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature and source of the share application received was fully explained by the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. The PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments were placed

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)

transfer it to party/beneficiary's bank account. For doing so, we used to get a commission income in cash from party @ 0.10 paisa per 100 rupees of cheque amount. Our companies buy the shares after the prices raised through artificial synchronized trading." ITA Nos.5 & 6/SRT/2019 ITA Nos.7 & 10/SRT/2019 Assessment Years.2013-14 & 2014-15 NishantKantilal Patel & Muktaben N Patel The assessing officer

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)

transfer it to party/beneficiary's bank account. For doing so, we used to get a commission income in cash from party @ 0.10 paisa per 100 rupees of cheque amount. Our companies buy the shares after the prices raised through artificial synchronized trading." ITA Nos.5 & 6/SRT/2019 ITA Nos.7 & 10/SRT/2019 Assessment Years.2013-14 & 2014-15 NishantKantilal Patel & Muktaben N Patel The assessing officer

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)

transfer it to party/beneficiary's bank account. For doing so, we used to get a commission income in cash from party @ 0.10 paisa per 100 rupees of cheque amount. Our companies buy the shares after the prices raised through artificial synchronized trading." ITA Nos.5 & 6/SRT/2019 ITA Nos.7 & 10/SRT/2019 Assessment Years.2013-14 & 2014-15 NishantKantilal Patel & Muktaben N Patel The assessing officer

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

undisclosed income and accordingly made addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appeal filed by the Assessee was dismissed by CIT (A). 5. On further Appeal, the ITAT by the impugned order allowed the claim of the assessee by recording that the purchase of shares during the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were duly recorded

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

undisclosed income and accordingly made addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appeal filed by the Assessee was dismissed by CIT (A). 5. On further Appeal, the ITAT by the impugned order allowed the claim of the assessee by recording that the purchase of shares during the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were duly recorded

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-2,, SURAT vs. SHRI RAMESHBHAI RAGHAVBHAI BHADANI, SURAT

In the result, summarized and concise ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.25 &31/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Fashion, 14, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No. 505, 5Th Floor, Nirman Industrial Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Vs. Surat-395001. Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Rameshbai Raghavhai Bhadani Plot No.14-16, Nirman Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No.505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Industrial Estate, A./K. Road, Surat-395008 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.45/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Income-Tax, Circle-3, Room No. Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Vs. 505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Fashion, 14, Nirman Industrial Majura Gate, Surat-395001. Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent)

income in the form of unexplained investment in the said land but denied to have made the balance payment of Rs.4,09,33,869/- as worked out by the AO from the sauda chltthi for which no evidence was found in the form of payment vouchers or notings in the payment diary. The assessee further reiterated that after making total

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)

prices of listed company was shut-up within a short period, the addition is not justified. 18) The assessee strongly urges that there is absolutely no evidence as to earning of undisclosed income and giving unaccounted cash to Ashokkumar Kayan in lieu of selling shares of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd through him. 19) The assessee had also purchased shares of several

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. -4, SURAT vs. SHREE KUBERJI TEXTILE DECK, SURAT

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 63 & 64/Srt/2023 (Ay: 2016-17 & 2019-20) (Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Central Circle-4, 2Nd Floor, Shree Kuberji Corporate Vs. Surat. House, Begumpura, Nr. Khndaa Kuva Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Acsfs 4939 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee D.C.I.T., Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Central Circle-4, 2Nd Floor, Shree Kuberji Corporate Vs. Surat. House, Begumpura, Nr. Khndaa Kuva Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Acsfs 4939 A Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee

Income Tax- Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue and the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee. We have also gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that during the search action

M/S. MAYUR CONSTRUCTION,,VALSAD vs. THE ACIT., VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 1042/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mayur Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad. 110, Amar Chamber,Valsad. S [Pan: Aadfm 9859 L] . अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

transfer of possession 1. A-1/102 7,02,000/- F.Y. 2010-11 2. B-701 3,33,000/- F.Y. 2009-10 3. B-707 5,26,500/- F.Y. 2009-10 4. B-703 5,26,500/- F.Y. 2010-11 5. B-401 3,33,000/- F.Y. 2010-11 Total 24,21,000/- 7 Mayur Construction Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Valsad

NEELU MAHANSARIA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.197/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Neelu Mahansaria Income Tax Officer, 304, Green Park Apartment, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat Vs City Light Road, Nr. Corner Point Complex, Surat-395007 Pan No: Adbpm 2707 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

undisclosed income u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 together with a sum of Rs. 30,190/-of commission paid on the LTCG as unexplained expenditure under section 69 of the Act. A demand is determined u/s 156 dated 28/12/2016 of Rs.69490/-. The addition by A.O is, incorrect and unjustified. Neelu Mahansaria (2) The appellant craves leave to add, alter

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

price reflected is Rs.16,17,91,847/- whereas, the sale consideration shown in the registered sale deed was only to the tune of Rs.4,52,60,000/-. Thus, the difference of Rs.11,65,31,847/- was added to the total income as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. IT(SS)A.150-154/AHD/2015 & ITA.1245/AHD/2015 Assessment Years

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

undisclosed income detected during search conduct under Section 132 of the Act, their lordships were pleased to hold : "15 Omission on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with

UMESH P. MAHANSARIA (HUF),SURAT vs. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 151/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Umesh P. Mahansaria (Huf) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- C-501, The Legend, Vastu Gram, Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, बनाम Vesu, Surat-395 007 Aaykar Bhavan, Anavil Building, Vs [Pan : Aaahu 6298 L] Adajan, Surat-395 009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

transfer furnished by Income Tax Authority and the Tribunal have also took the notice of fact that the shares remained in the account of assessee, the assessee also furnished demat account and details of bank transaction about the sale and purchase of shares, the addition was deleted. 11. Further I find of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case