THE ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, SURAT vs. MICRO INKS LIMITED,, VAPI

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 on the aforesaid payments on the basis of the benefit of exception clause provided in Section 9(l)(v)(b) of the Act. The Learned Assessing Officer held that the interest payments constitute an accrual of income in India U/s. 5(2) of the Act as far as the nonresident banks are concerned. Accordingly he held that withholding

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

11 Jitubhai Kathiriya (TDS Deducted) EHAPK1 1 HE 317,172 12 Koes Construction (TDS Deducted) BANPK9072K 36,800 13 Mangukiya Brothers Project Pvt Ltd AALCM5099B 5,492,000 (TDS Deducted) 14 Mehulbhai Jaysukhbhai Vekariya (CR) AWZPV5715A 123,000 (TDS Deducted) 15 Nitin R Bhavani (TDS Deducted) AQHPB2009D 5,113,964 16 NR EPC Project Private Limited (TDS AAFCN2999F

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

11 years and 5 months.\n16.\nIn view of the above facts and respectfully following the authoritative\nprecedents cited supra, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in refusing\nto condone the inordinate delay in filing appeals before him in terms of\nprovisions of section 249(3) of the Act, in absence of any sufficient cause.\nAccordingly

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

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)

TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the tune of Rs.11,59,064/-. Now, the question before us is that whether the assessee can take the advantage provided in section 44AD of the Act? Let us, first of all, consult the provisions of section 44AD of the Act, which is reproduced below (to the extent relevant

DESAI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS ITA No.505 to 526/SRT/2018 (AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 Desai Infrastructure Private Limited statement furnished by the assessee in all quarters were prior to 01-06- 2015. 8. We find that in case of Rajesh Kourani Vs UOI (supra) the Hon'ble High court while considering the constitutional validity of Section 200A held that fee prescribed under section

DESAI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS ITA No.505 to 526/SRT/2018 (AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 Desai Infrastructure Private Limited statement furnished by the assessee in all quarters were prior to 01-06- 2015. 8. We find that in case of Rajesh Kourani Vs UOI (supra) the Hon'ble High court while considering the constitutional validity of Section 200A held that fee prescribed under section

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. In the petition, the petitioner has raised following threefold grievances: I. That section 234E of the Act is ultra-vires and unconstitutional II. Rule 31A of the Rules insofar as it prescribes longer period for the Government to file the statements as compared to the other assessees is discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional. III. Prior to 01.06.2015, section

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. In the petition, the petitioner has raised following threefold grievances: I. That section 234E of the Act is ultra-vires and unconstitutional II. Rule 31A of the Rules insofar as it prescribes longer period for the Government to file the statements as compared to the other assessees is discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional. III. Prior to 01.06.2015, section

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. In the petition, the petitioner has raised following threefold grievances: I. That section 234E of the Act is ultra-vires and unconstitutional II. Rule 31A of the Rules insofar as it prescribes longer period for the Government to file the statements as compared to the other assessees is discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional. III. Prior to 01.06.2015, section

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. In the petition, the petitioner has raised following threefold grievances: I. That section 234E of the Act is ultra-vires and unconstitutional II. Rule 31A of the Rules insofar as it prescribes longer period for the Government to file the statements as compared to the other assessees is discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional. III. Prior to 01.06.2015, section

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. In the petition, the petitioner has raised following threefold grievances: I. That section 234E of the Act is ultra-vires and unconstitutional II. Rule 31A of the Rules insofar as it prescribes longer period for the Government to file the statements as compared to the other assessees is discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional. III. Prior to 01.06.2015, section

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. In the petition, the petitioner has raised following threefold grievances: I. That section 234E of the Act is ultra-vires and unconstitutional II. Rule 31A of the Rules insofar as it prescribes longer period for the Government to file the statements as compared to the other assessee is discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional. ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. In the petition, the petitioner has raised following threefold grievances: I. That section 234E of the Act is ultra-vires and unconstitutional II. Rule 31A of the Rules insofar as it prescribes longer period for the Government to file the statements as compared to the other assessee is discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional. ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. In the petition, the petitioner has raised following threefold grievances: I. That section 234E of the Act is ultra-vires and unconstitutional II. Rule 31A of the Rules insofar as it prescribes longer period for the Government to file the statements as compared to the other assessee is discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional. ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. In the petition, the petitioner has raised following threefold grievances: I. That section 234E of the Act is ultra-vires and unconstitutional II. Rule 31A of the Rules insofar as it prescribes longer period for the Government to file the statements as compared to the other assessee is discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional. ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

11 years because order u/s 200A(1) of the Act was passed on 31.07.2012 but appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 14.02.2024. Neither any convincing reasons of the grounds for the inordinate delay in filing appeal was adduced nor any documentary evidence in support of the submissions was filed. As per provisions of section

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

11 years because order u/s 200A(1) of the Act was passed on 31.07.2012 but appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 14.02.2024. Neither any convincing reasons of the grounds for the inordinate delay in filing appeal was adduced nor any documentary evidence in support of the submissions was filed. As per provisions of section

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

11 years because order u/s 200A(1) of the Act was passed on 31.07.2012 but appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 14.02.2024. Neither any convincing reasons of the grounds for the inordinate delay in filing appeal was adduced nor any documentary evidence in support of the submissions was filed. As per provisions of section