M/S. JAY KHODIYAR ENGINEERING,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1487/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Jay Khodiyar Engineering, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 52, New Shakti Vijay Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat Varachha Road, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3305P (Assessee) (Respondent)

carried forward to the subsequent month which in the assessee's case considering the labour payments shown in the months of January 2010 and February 2010 should. not exceed Rs.50,00,000/- which ought to be paid in the subsequent month. However, in the case of the assessee such payment is found to be spread over four months from April

SHRI BHARATKUMAR T. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, Ground No.1 of appeal is allowed

TDS details, confirmation and return of income filed by the said parties for verification of the said labour expenses. Therefore, to verify the genuineness of said labour expenses, AO had issued notice u/s.133(6) of the parties but were received returned. The AO had rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of commission received @ 0.30% and had estimated

SHIVAM RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,VALSAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shivam Residential Construction Principal Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Civil Income-Tax-Valsad, Palak Vs. Hospital Road, Nanakwada, Valsad Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapcs 3137 G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-D.R

TDS could be made are paid to the Govt. account. In fact, the claim of provision itself in the original return of income is wrong but the AO has not bothered to examine the issue leaving the serious error which would get carried forward to the next year. The assessee in its reply has submitted that the provision of Rs.2.00

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

forward losses, if any. iii) Copy of assessment order passed in your case under Section. 143(3)/144 in last four years, if any.” 9. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that assessee filed its reply/explanation vide reply dated 23.11.2015, along with reply, filed the copy of assessment order of Assessment Year

STAR EDUCATION TRUST,SURAT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.539/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Court Hearing) The Star Education Trust, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 9A, Ratnanilam Apartment, Piplod, Ahmedabad. Surat-395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts2856F

carried forward from earlier years in excess of 85% of income and its application with complete details and documentary evidences. 6. Please furnish details of Revenue Expenses for F.Y. 2017-18 (excess of Rs.1 Lakhs). Purpose of Mode Name Amount Date Source expenses of & address paid of payment of payment transaction of the party 1. Please furnish details of TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. JASHMIN KANTILAL PATEL, VAPI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.125/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Jashmin Kantilal Patel, Vapi Circle, Plot No.320/9, 40 Shed Area, Gidc, Vapi Vapi – 396191. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agcp0492M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 09/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

carried out transportation work and had shown all the income earned from Such transportation contract in its return filed for A.Y. 2017-18. The said parties had also deducted TDS of Rs.1,61,448/- on the contract amount of Rs.2,19,67,791/-. However, the TDS was deposited ITA No.125/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Jashmin Kantilal Patel under the PAN of the Shri Jasmine

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

loss if the assessee will not get any benefit in filing the appeals rather there is always chance of dismissal of appeal for technical reasons. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that considering the aforesaid factual backgrounds and keeping in view that delays were neither intentional nor deliberate therefore, the same may be condoned. To support his submission

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

loss if the assessee will not get any benefit in filing the appeals rather there is always chance of dismissal of appeal for technical reasons. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that considering the aforesaid factual backgrounds and keeping in view that delays were neither intentional nor deliberate therefore, the same may be condoned. To support his submission

BANK OF INDIA,SURAT vs. ITO (TDS-1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

loss if the assessee will not get any benefit in filing the appeals rather there is always chance of dismissal of appeal for technical reasons. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that considering the aforesaid factual backgrounds and keeping in view that delays were neither intentional nor deliberate therefore, the same may be condoned. To support his submission

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

loss if the assessee will not get any benefit in filing the appeals rather there is always chance of dismissal of appeal for technical reasons. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that considering the aforesaid factual backgrounds and keeping in view that delays were neither intentional nor deliberate therefore, the same may be condoned. To support his submission

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.

TDS interest 1,185 Interest paid to Partners 37,80,279 Sub- total 4,80,60,494 Less: Interest as per Deed u/s 37,80,279 40(b) Total Income 4,42,80,215 Total Income ( rounding off) 4,42,80,220 There is no other activity or other source of income available to the firm

KSHITIJ MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

carried the matter in appeal before the Learned CIT(A), who has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. Shri Rasesh Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee-company has produced the following documents and evidences viz: (i)confirmation from parties

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. M/S. D P VEKARIYA, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 172/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-3(3), Vs. M/S. D. P. Vekariya, Surat Skylark Shopping, B/H Kapodara Police Station, Varachha Road, Surat, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfd 8442 Q (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr 02/06/2022 Date Of Hearing 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

loss account (Schedule 13: Other Income). But simultaneously, the assessee has shown undisclosed work in progress amounting to Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Schedule 13: Direct expenses). Thus, there was a net undisclosed income of Rs.5,00,000/-. On the basis of this finding case of the assessee has been reopened. We note that during the course of original assessment proceeding

D V PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) D. V. Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit - 1, 748-749, Golden Plaza Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms Chaitali Shah, Ca Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2023

carrying on the business and as per section 37(1) of the Act, only such expenditure which are incurred in connection with business and offence for an illegal act or breach of law or prohibition of law are alone not allowable and in other cases and more particularly in this case, the interest in respect of TDS was only

SWASTIK CORPORATION,VAPI vs. PR. CIT 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.21/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Swastik Corporation The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Palak A-305, Surya Co-Operative Vs. Housing Society Ltd., Plot Arcade, Pali Hill Shanti Nagar, Tithal No.61, Vapi-396195 Road,Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abtfs 1028 G अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Loss Account for the year under consideration. Considering the facts of the case and the provision of section 184(5) of the I.T. Act, the interest and remuneration paid to the partners of Rs.11,05,769/- was not allowable to the assessee- firm as the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act. The AO had wrongly

ACIT,CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. SHRI MOHMEDSADIK A SHAIKH, ANKALESHWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.682/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Mohmedsadik A. Shaikh, Bharuch. Prop. Of Earth Power, Behind Mona Complex, Rajpipla Chowkdi, Ankleshwar-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahzps5638N (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Assessee By : Ms Kinjal V. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-Vadodara-3/10033/2017-18, Dated 30.07.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

TDS Rs.26,68,513/- 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has made estimated addition at the rate of 10% of Turnover and deleted other addition made by the Assessing Officer observing as follows: ITA.682/SRT/2019/AY.2014-15 Mohmedsadik A. Shaikh “Once books of accounts are rejected under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT, SURAT vs. J.B. AND BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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.522/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Vs. J. B. & Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Tower Fc 3011/3012, 3Rd Floor, Bharat Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat, Room Diamond Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, No.504, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400004 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccj1569J (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2023

loss to the Revenue. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.48,00,000/- fully being the total salary paid to the said 4 lady members. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee observing as follows: “8.2 I have gone

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

forwarded by the DClT Circle 1, Ranchi mentions that Shri J K Dos was asked to produce copies of ITR, bank details and computation or income for the lost 3 assessment years and the said Shri. J K Dos appeared end produced the said documents in case of all lender except M/s Jyoti Vikas industries. The enquiry report encloses