SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS 47,025/- ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on above additions / disallowances for concealment of income and issued notices u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act on 13.02.2017. 5. During the penalty proceedings, the assessing officer held that

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)

13. We have heard both the parties. Learned DR for the Revenue argued that medical expenses and tea expenses are deleted by ld CIT(A) without considering the fact that it is not reimbursement of expenses. The ld DR ITA Nos.590/SRT/2019 & 4/SRT/2020 The Surat Dist. Co.op Bank Ltd. stated that it is part of expenses and further

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)

13. We have heard both the parties. Learned DR for the Revenue argued that medical expenses and tea expenses are deleted by ld CIT(A) without considering the fact that it is not reimbursement of expenses. The ld DR ITA Nos.590/SRT/2019 & 4/SRT/2020 The Surat Dist. Co.op Bank Ltd. stated that it is part of expenses and further

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

section 271(1)(c), levied the penalty on these disallowances. Even the Ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the levy of penalty on the aforesaid Santosh Singh Hukam Singh Karnawat (Individual) vs. ITO Asst. Year – 2012-13 - 6– disallowance, firstly on the ground that assessee has failed to discharge its onus during the course of assessment proceedings as well

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-SURAT, SURAT vs. ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest-free advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- given to the trustee, thereby sustaining the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act to that extent. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before

ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL,SURAT vs. CIT EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest-free advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- given to the trustee, thereby sustaining the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act to that extent. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before

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

TDS, Vs Hatdi, Navsari-396445 Bengaluru PAN : AGOPB 3495 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by ShriSujesh C Suratwala, CA राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri S.B.G Mahapatra, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 02.08.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of 05.08.2022 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH

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

TDS, Vs Hatdi, Navsari-396445 Bengaluru PAN : AGOPB 3495 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by ShriSujesh C Suratwala, CA राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri S.B.G Mahapatra, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 02.08.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of 05.08.2022 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH

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

TDS, Vs Hatdi, Navsari-396445 Bengaluru PAN : AGOPB 3495 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by ShriSujesh C Suratwala, CA राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri S.B.G Mahapatra, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 02.08.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of 05.08.2022 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH

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

TDS, Vs Hatdi, Navsari-396445 Bengaluru PAN : AGOPB 3495 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by ShriSujesh C Suratwala, CA राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri S.B.G Mahapatra, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 02.08.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of 05.08.2022 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH

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

TDS, Vs Hatdi, Navsari-396445 Bengaluru PAN : AGOPB 3495 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by ShriSujesh C Suratwala, CA राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shri S.B.G Mahapatra, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 02.08.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of 05.08.2022 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH

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

c) of 9(f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retrospective character of effect. The judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is supported by decision of Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer

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

c) of 9(f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retrospective character of effect. The judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is supported by decision of Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer

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

c) of 9(f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retrospective character of effect. The judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is supported by decision of Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer

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

c) of 9(f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retrospective character of effect. The judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is supported by decision of Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer

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

13. With effect from 01.07.2012, the legislature also introduced section 271H of the Act providing penalty for failure to furnish statements required to be filed under sub-section (3) of section 200 or under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of section 271H in case of default to file

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

13. With effect from 01.07.2012, the legislature also introduced section 271H of the Act providing penalty for failure to furnish statements required to be filed under sub-section (3) of section 200 or under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of section 271H in case of default to file

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)

13. I note that addition on account of TDS credit deposited by employer-State bank of India on payment of leave travel concession of Rs. 2,20,518/- has been deleted by the Tribunal, therefore the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c

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

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

13,B/2, Shanti Niketan Appartment, Surat. Sumul Dairy Road, Katargam, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BAFPP1490M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : None. Revenue by : Ms Anupama Singhla, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 27/04/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed