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 on the said payment, because of benefit of exception Clause provided in Sec-(1)(v)(b) of the Act. However, the ld.Assessing Officer had not considered manufacturing activities through wholly owned subsidiaries as a business carried on outside India. The company had raised debts in foreign currencies. Under scheme quoted by Reserve Bank of India known as external commercial

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala certain

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala certain

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala certain

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala certain

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala certain

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai A Patel certain delay in furnishing / filing the statement

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai A Patel certain delay in furnishing / filing the statement

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai A Patel certain delay in furnishing / filing the statement

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai A Patel certain delay in furnishing / filing the statement

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS on the same. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses towards Employees contribution to provident fund/shortfall Rs.29,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee is using this fund to cover up shortfall and pay employees contribution which is in fact

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS on the same. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses towards Employees contribution to provident fund/shortfall Rs.29,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee is using this fund to cover up shortfall and pay employees contribution which is in fact

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

2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as also on law learned DCIT, CPC TDS has erred in giving effect to the levy of late fee in the course of intimation under section 200A of the Act. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as also on subject the learned

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

2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as also on law learned DCIT, CPC TDS has erred in giving effect to the levy of late fee in the course of intimation under section 200A of the Act. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as also on subject the learned

GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS RS.1,82,119/- POWER TILLER REBATE RS.14,000/- FBT EXPENSES RS.6,610/- 12,19,729 1,07,61,916 2) AGRICULTURAL ITEMS EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.5,35,43,908/- TILLER SALE SHOWN BY THE LEARNED AO LESS: CLOSING STOCK RS.65,28,858/- WRONGLY CONSIDERED IN TURNOVER EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.4,70,15,050/- 15.33 TILLER SALE AS PER BOOKS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NA vs. ARIVS.GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS RS.1,82,119/- POWER TILLER REBATE RS.14,000/- FBT EXPENSES RS.6,610/- 12,19,729 1,07,61,916 2) AGRICULTURAL ITEMS EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.5,35,43,908/- TILLER SALE SHOWN BY THE LEARNED AO LESS: CLOSING STOCK RS.65,28,858/- WRONGLY CONSIDERED IN TURNOVER EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.4,70,15,050/- 15.33 TILLER SALE AS PER BOOKS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NA vs. ARIVS.GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS RS.1,82,119/- POWER TILLER REBATE RS.14,000/- FBT EXPENSES RS.6,610/- 12,19,729 1,07,61,916 2) AGRICULTURAL ITEMS EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.5,35,43,908/- TILLER SALE SHOWN BY THE LEARNED AO LESS: CLOSING STOCK RS.65,28,858/- WRONGLY CONSIDERED IN TURNOVER EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.4,70,15,050/- 15.33 TILLER SALE AS PER BOOKS

GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS RS.1,82,119/- POWER TILLER REBATE RS.14,000/- FBT EXPENSES RS.6,610/- 12,19,729 1,07,61,916 2) AGRICULTURAL ITEMS EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.5,35,43,908/- TILLER SALE SHOWN BY THE LEARNED AO LESS: CLOSING STOCK RS.65,28,858/- WRONGLY CONSIDERED IN TURNOVER EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.4,70,15,050/- 15.33 TILLER SALE AS PER BOOKS

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

119 as\nunaccounted interest income. These receipts were already added as income\nand taxed in para 10 & 11 of the order. This is evident from the para 10 & 11\nexplanations. Where all bank credit entries were considered as income. These\nreceipts were already considered as income at the time of making addition of\ncredit entries. This is again the case