MICRO INKS PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS MICRO INKS LTD.),VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ( INTL. TAXN.), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

TDS made Australia & New Singapore Rs.1,93,89,614 10% DTAA Rs.19,38,960 Zealand Banking Group DBS Bank Ltd. Singapore Rs.66,53,684 10% DTAA Rs.6,65,370 Standard UK Rs.84,50,573 10% DTAA Rs.8,45,060 Chartered Bank The HSBC Ltd. Hong Kong Rs.31,73,181 40% No DTAA Rs.47,18,660 Rs.3,76,67,052 Rs.47

SHRI DINESHBHAI VITTALBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.970/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dineshbhai Vittalbhai Income Tax Officer, Patel, Ward- 2(3)(7), Surat 6/1261, Bhut Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat Pan: Aatwpp 3597J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

5 of 15 erected by the SMC and proceedings for acquisition of land were initiated. However, in the meantime the land owners have entered into negotiation with SMC and sellers agreed to sell the subject land at negotiated price and conveyed their consent. Therefore, CIT (A) viewed that reservation per se cannot be termed as acquisition of land leave aside

DHANSUKHBHAI PARAGJIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1021/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dhansukhbhai Deputy Commissioner Of Paragjibhai Patel, Income-Tax, 143, Brahaman Faliya, Circle - 2(3) Surat Dindoli Udhna 394210 Pan: Avdpp7007 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

5 of 16 erected by the SMC and proceedings for acquisition of land were initiated. However, in the meantime the land owners have entered into negotiation with SMC and sellers agreed to sell the subject land at negotiated price and conveyed their consent. Therefore, CIT (A) viewed that reservation per se cannot be termed as acquisition of land leave aside

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS was not deducted by the State Bank of India (employer) because apparently such LTC in the hands of assessee was exempted under section 10(5

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CO. PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

TDS has been deducted from all expenses debited in P&L account was not acceptable. This issue was not considered by AO while finalizing the assessment order. Regarding the tolerance band for variation between sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, the PCIT observed that it was 5% only for the year under consideration and amendment enhancing the variation to 10

SHRI BIPINCHANDRA HIRALAL THAKKAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2126/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Ay.: (2013-14) Shri Bipinchandra Hiralal Thakkar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.60/61, Hari Ichha Society, Ward-1(2)6, Surat. Udhna Bhestan Road, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpt1432D (Assessee) (Respondent)

10. Ground Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 are identical in nature and taken up together herein. The ld. DR did not refute the claim of the assesee in respect of applicability of section 44AD for A.Y.2008-09. For the sake of convenience the provision of section 44AD is reproduced hereunder :- "44AD (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section

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

section 10(23C) it is specifically mentioned as under: "The prescribed authority, before approving any fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution as the case may be, as it thinks necessary in order to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the activities of such fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational

AKSHAR INFRA,BHARUCH vs. ITO(TDS), BHARUCN, BHARUCH

In the result, the ground Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.276/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Akshar Infra Income Tax Officer (Tds), Bharuch, Hari Kunj, R.S.No.347, Old N.H.S. Vs Station Road, Bharuch- Nr. Samrajya School, 356069 Andada, Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393001 Pan No. Abbfa 5016 E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

5. The Assessing Officer treated the assessee as assessee in default. The Assessing Officer failed to take into account the operation of first proviso to Section 201(1) and proviso to Section 201(1A). The assessee submitted that proviso to Section 201(1A) is applicable to the fact of assessee where the assessee is not deducted TDS but assessee

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , TDS, CPC, SURAT

10 years\n2.\n812/SRT/2024\n2013-14\n9 years\n3.\n814/SRT/2024\n2014-15\nMore than 8 years\n4.\n815/SRT/2024\n2014-15\nMore than 8 years\n5.\n816/SRT/2024\n2013-14\nMoe than 9 years\n6.\n818/SRT/2024\n2013-14\nMore than 9 years\n7.\n855/SRT/2024\n2015-16\nMore than 5 years\n19.\nFacts of the case in all these appeals are similar

THE UDHNA CITIZEN CO OPP. BANK LIMITED ,NOW MERGE WITH KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.OP. BANK LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. I.T.O TDS -2 , SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% u/s.194J of the Act on the legal and consultation expenses. Since the TDS AO was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee regarding the non-deduction of TDS, the assessee was treated as “assessee in default” and accordingly demand of Rs.4,77,114/- was raised vide order dated 29.03.2019 under the provision of section 201(1) r.w.s

STATE BANK OF INDIA (VYARA BRANCH),,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS return for the SBI v. ACIT(CPC)Ghaziabad /I.T.A.No. 3419 to 3423/ AHD/2016/A.Y.-13 to 15-16 Page 4 of 16 assessment year 20131-14. However, the assessee is not in Stay Petition No. of notice for said matter, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal within the time allowed for filing of appeals The reasons for delay

STATE BANK OF INDIA (VYARA BRANCH),,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS return for the SBI v. ACIT(CPC)Ghaziabad /I.T.A.No. 3419 to 3423/ AHD/2016/A.Y.-13 to 15-16 Page 4 of 16 assessment year 20131-14. However, the assessee is not in Stay Petition No. of notice for said matter, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal within the time allowed for filing of appeals The reasons for delay

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS return for the SBI v. ACIT(CPC)Ghaziabad /I.T.A.No. 3419 to 3423/ AHD/2016/A.Y.-13 to 15-16 Page 4 of 16 assessment year 20131-14. However, the assessee is not in Stay Petition No. of notice for said matter, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal within the time allowed for filing of appeals The reasons for delay

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS return for the SBI v. ACIT(CPC)Ghaziabad /I.T.A.No. 3419 to 3423/ AHD/2016/A.Y.-13 to 15-16 Page 4 of 16 assessment year 20131-14. However, the assessee is not in Stay Petition No. of notice for said matter, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal within the time allowed for filing of appeals The reasons for delay

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS return for the SBI v. ACIT(CPC)Ghaziabad /I.T.A.No. 3419 to 3423/ AHD/2016/A.Y.-13 to 15-16 Page 4 of 16 assessment year 20131-14. However, the assessee is not in Stay Petition No. of notice for said matter, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal within the time allowed for filing of appeals The reasons for delay

VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED,VAPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Pr.C.I.T., Valsad. 135, 1St Floor, Via House, G.I.D.C. 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Vs. Char Rasta, Vapi, Gujarat, Arcade, Shanti Nagar, India-396195. Tithal Road, Pan: Aaacv 8289 P Valsad-396001. Appellant Respondednt

10,410/- being interest on TDS. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in overlooking the fact that, the Appellant has claimed gross income of Rs.52,71,01,098/- as exempt on applicability of mutuality principles and the Appellant has not claimed any expenditure as they are related to exempt income. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income

LATE MAHESH RAMANLAL MODI L/H MANISH MAHESH MODI,BHARUCH vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No. VII of appeal raised by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi, A.C.I.T., Through L-H Manish Mahesh Modi, Circle-1, Vs. Near Shakuntal Apartment, Dahej Bharuch. Bypass Road At Nandelav, Bharuch-392001 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adfpm 4030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 23(5) was inserted from 01/04/2018, the Assessing Officer was of the view that such amendment is not applicable for the year under consideration. 6 Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi through L/H-Manish Mahesh Modi Vs ACIT The Assessing Officer worked out the deemed annual letting value at the rate of Rs. 1.26 lacs after allowing standard deduction @ 30% and added

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. VALENCIA CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) A.C.I.T. M/S Valencia Corporation, Central Circle-4, S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu-Rundh Vs. Surat. Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant Respondednt C.O. No. 17/Srt/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 257/Srt/2022)(Ay: 2016-17) M/S Valencia Corporation, A.C.I.T. S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu- Central Circle-4, Vs. Rundh Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Surat. Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant/Objector Respondednt

TDS was deducted in concern FYs in which bills were raised by the works contractor (i.e. Konark Infratech). Also, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered the requirements of section 41(1) of the Act, and onus cast upon the assessing officer to prove that conditions of section 41(1) of the Act have to be fulfilled to treat the liability

DHANSUKHLAL MAGANLAL DHANGAR,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Dhansukhlal Maganlal Dhangar, I.T.O., Shantinagar Society, Ranifaliya, Ward-2, Vs. Vansda, Navsari-396580 (Gujarat) Navsari. Pan No. Acypd 0673 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

5,30,025/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. Assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 15/01/2021. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, made addition on account of interest received from bank of Rs. 42,550/- and addition of leave encashment of Rs. 6,48,025/-. The Assessing Officer made addition