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

5(2), total income will include those incomes which are received in India or which has accrued or arisen in India. In addition to this, this is also to be included in ITO,(Int. Taxation), Surat Vs. Micro Inks Ltd.: Vice-Versa /ITA No’s.2375 & 2707/AHD/2014 for A.Y. 2012-13 Page 15 of 27 the total income of non-resident

SURESH RAMANBHAI NAIK L/H OF RAMANBHAI PARBHUBHAI DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Suresh Ramanbhai Naik, I.T.O., L/R Of Ramanbhai Parbhubhai Desai, Ward-3(2)(3), Vs. 41, Meghna Raw House, Near Surat. Maharaja Agrasen Bhavan, City Light Road, Surat-395003. Pan No. Akqpd 5495 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2011-12. It is matter of fact that the assessee filed return of income belatedly on 02/10/2012. Copy of acknowledgement of return is placed on record. On perusal of acknowledgement, we find that the assessee has claimed payment of tax of Rs. 23,183/- (by way of TDS). The Assessing Officer while

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

TDS as stipulated u/s.201(1) of the Act. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and section 201(1) operate in The Udhna Citizen cooperative Bank Limited vs. ITO, Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 5– different domain and are not mutually exclusive to each other. It will be relevant to reproduce the provision of section 201(1) of the Act, which

VIKRAM HARSHADBHAI MODI,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(5), SURAT

In the result, Ground No.2 and 3 of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Vikram Harshadbhai The Income Tax Officer Modi, Ward-3(1)(5), Aaykar Vs 7/2737, Chandulal Sheth Ni Bhavan, Majura Gate, Sheri, Saiyedpura, Surat-395001 Surat-395003 Pan : Alhpm 2036 Q Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

TDS was made under section 194C of the Act. The assessee is covered by the provision of section 44AD of the Act and the income earned by the assessee was less than the minimum income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.1,60,428/- and the assessee was not required to file return of income. Even in response to notice under

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

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 allowed the above said interest to partners. Further, the AO has not charged interest u/s 234A

SURAT DISTRICT CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Surat District Co-Op. Dy. Commissioner Of Milk Producer’S Union Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Vs Sumul Dairy Road, Station Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Road, Surat Gate, Surat Pan : Aaaas 3450 M Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

139 of the Act, has taken into account such sum for computing income of such return of income and has paid the tax due on the income declared by him and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed. The assessee further explained has furnished the certificate of Chartered accountant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT, SURAT vs. SHRINIDHI ENTERPRIZE , SURAT

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are, hereby, dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.914/Srt/2024 & 797/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Acit Shrinidhi Enterprize Central Circle-3 बनाम/ 6/1862, 63, Ground Floor Surat Ghanshyam Bhuvan V/S. Bali Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat – 395 003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acbfs 6484 R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 7,60,01,880/-. Subsequently, scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 20.12.2017 accepting the returned income. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. SHRINIDHI ENTERPRIZE, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are, hereby, dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.914/Srt/2024 & 797/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Acit Shrinidhi Enterprize Central Circle-3 बनाम/ 6/1862, 63, Ground Floor Surat Ghanshyam Bhuvan V/S. Bali Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat – 395 003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acbfs 6484 R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 7,60,01,880/-. Subsequently, scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 20.12.2017 accepting the returned income. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from

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”].

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting addition of Rs.26,68,513/- being income corresponding to undisclosed TDS of Rs.48,338/- by estimating net profit @10% of turnover, without appreciating that though the assessee had earned above referred income of Rs.26

VIRAL SHAILESH SHAH,VALSAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.536/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Viral Shailesh Shah, Vs. The Acit, C/O. Dr. Shailesh V. Shah, B/H. Valsad Circle, Pramanik Store, Opp. Atul First Valsad Gate, Atul, Valsad – 396020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bfaps6008A (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 139 of I.T. Act. Therefore, assessee’s case was re- opened and accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.03.2018 by the ITO, Ward-4, Valsad after obtaining approval of Ld. Pr. CIT, Valsad u/s 151(1) of the IT Act and the same was duly served upon the assessee. 5. As per AIR information

KISHOR RAMESHBHAI MEHTA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

139, Maher Nagar, Opp. BAPS Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ADEPM 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

5. On perusing the submissions furnished by the assessee and other material available on record, the AO observed that the assessee confirmed cash deposits of Rs.23,41,300/- during the year, however, he could not substantiate the nature and source of such cash deposits by furnishing cogent documentary evidence. Therefore, the same was treated as unexplained money and added

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

5. On perusing the submissions furnished by the assessee and other material available on record, the AO observed that the assessee confirmed cash deposits of Rs.23,41,300/- during the year, however, he could not substantiate the nature and source of such cash deposits by furnishing cogent documentary evidence. Therefore, the same was treated as unexplained money and added

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in reducing from the “profits and gains of the business” an amount of Rs.34,84,029/- in respect of interest income earned on fixed deposit with Bank. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances

THE ACIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in reducing from the “profits and gains of the business” an amount of Rs.34,84,029/- in respect of interest income earned on fixed deposit with Bank. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances

ARJUNSINH HARISINH THAKOR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARDOLI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

139/-. The assessee made deposits of Rs. 31,42,500/- on various dates between 10/11/2016 to 03/12/2016. The ld AR for the assessee filed cash flow statement. The ld. AR further submits that the assessee is consistently showing good return of income and furnished following bifurcation of return of income for various years: Income as per Return filed

GREENLINE ECOFAB PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1373/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Greenline Ecofab Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 406, Jeevan Deep, Opp. Sub- Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Vs. Jail, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 Surat, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg 2881 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted the paper book containing various details produced by the appellant before the AO during the original assessment proceedings. He submitted that same details were also submitted before CIT(A). The Ld. AR has also filed a compilation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

TDS made on such interest and the amount received and repaid during the year. Such details are recorded by ld CITA) at page No. 18 & 19 of his order. The assessee also stated that the assessing officer considered only peak of all transaction and made addition of Rs. 4.15 Crore in AY 2010-11 and Rs. 2.14 Crore

NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT

5 on the facts\nand in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving\nset off of Rs.8,27,26,466/- on account of disclosure in IDS for A.Y 2016-17 while\ncalculation of the profit on the project, despite of the facts that no factual\ndetails were ever submitted