PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHEMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16.\nIt is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

TDS), Ahmedabad\n(iv) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Rajkot\n(v) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Surat\n(vi) Chief Commissioner of\nIncome-tax, Vadodara\n16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT,\nAhmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief\nCommissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT,\nAhmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.),\nAhmedabad

ISHIT KAMLESHBHAI SHETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b), unless it is shown that the income\noffered later was suppressed or misrepresented. The provision must\nbe applied with regard to substance over form. The discretion to levy\npenalty under section 270A(1) must be exercised judiciously. The\nprovision is not mandatory in nature. The authority must evaluate the\nassessee's explanation, conduct, and supporting documents to\ndetermine whether

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2970/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T., M/S Deloitee Haskins & Sells, Circle-1(2), Vs. 31-Nutan Bharat Society, Vadodara. Alkapuri, Baroda.

149/- 37,01,111/- NIL Hotel 3. ITC 13,21,195/- 5,93,567/- 11,556/- 7,39,185/- NIL Grand Total 1,19,90,581/- 60,51,027/- 1,20,705/- 59,51,111/- 11.1 As per the AO the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s 194-I of the Act with respect to the Banquet charges