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)

143(3). The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(a) in assessment year 2012-13. However, on appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee was granted relief and on further appeals of the Revenue is pending before Tribunal. These facts were not controverted by Revenue. Thus, the assessee is liable to be succeeded on the principles

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

1) of Section 263 of the Act is not applicable on the issues identified by the ld. Pr.CIT as such issues was not the part and parcel of subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue prayed for upholding the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT under Section

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

section 50C(1) of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that the order of PCIT may be upheld. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by the parties. It is clear from the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act that

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

section 201(1) r.w.s 201(1A) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the TDS AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. JASHMIN KANTILAL PATEL, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.125/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Jashmin Kantilal Patel, Vapi Circle, Plot No.320/9, 40 Shed Area, Gidc, Vapi Vapi – 396191. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agcp0492M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 09/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

TDS of Rs. 1,60,305/-, which actually was the tax deducted of the partnership firm M/s. Yogi Transport, in the original return of income filed by him, Therefore, assessing officer made addition under section 143

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)

143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short “the Act”), for the assessment year 2013- 14. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows: “[1] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as law on the subject; the learned Assessing Officer erred in applying the provisions of section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

143 (3)/154 dated 09.04.2014/31.03.2014 of Income Tax Act,1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax, Circle -1, Surat (in short “the AO”). DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat Vs. Kejriwal Industries Ltd.,/ITA No.1509/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 Page 2 of 49 Condonation of delay in filing of appeal before Tribunal

HARMONY YARNS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Harmony Yarns Private Vs. The Pcit-1, Limited, Surat Plot-65, 1St Floor Subhash Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Nr. Ram Chowk, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach5895F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

143(3). To substantiate the complete facts the exact notice wherein the details have been asked which is also the matter for the proceedings under consideration u/s 263 and the corresponding replies wherein all the details relating to the said issued have been submitted is listed as follows. a. Notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act dated

SHRI PRAKASHBHAI HARIBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Prakashbhai Haribhai Ahir, The Income Tax Officer, 23, Ashish Society, Ward-1(3)(8), Surat. Vs B/H.Navyug College, Rander Road, Surat. Pan: Abfpa 9237 R Appellant Respondent

143(3) and thereby re-opening the assessment as a change of opinion. The assessment should therefore, be quashed. 3. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,86,257/- by considering the income from letting out the property as business income instead of income from house property

GIRISHCHANDRA KESHAV BHATT,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS liability. The intimation under section 143(1) was sent to the assessee on 15/06/2018. 4. Aggrieved by the demand

GIRISHCHNDRA K. BHATT,SURAT vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR.3(1) NEW CIR.1(3), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS liability. The intimation under section 143(1) was sent to the assessee on 15/06/2018. 4. Aggrieved by the demand

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

TDS of Rs. 1,62,489/- on sales deducted by Gaurang Yogeshbhai Shah. Thus, it required to verify details of whether the assessee had offered the ITA 392/SRT/2018 Sach Electro Mech P Ltd. Vs PR.CIT income receipt from sales or not. And thirdly in Note 22 of Audit report, of column of other expenses of service tax and VAT debiting

STATE BANK OF INDIA,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.37 & 38/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtualcourt Hearing) State Bank Of India Income Tax Officer (Tds-3) Room No.607, Aaykar Regional Business Office-V, Navsari- Vs. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Tapi, 1St Floor, Shourya Apartment, 395001 Opp. Lunsikul Ground, Navsari- 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacs 8577 K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

TDS-3 has treated the Bank as an assessee in default for purpose of section 201 of the Act and raised the following demand for A.Y.2013-14 and 2014-15 Asst.Year LTC paid to Tax deductible Interest @1% p.m Total (Rs.) employees (RS.) @30% (Rs.) (Rs.) 2013-14 6,59,352/- 1

NIRAV BIPINBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.90/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Nirav Bipinbhai Vaghasiya Income Tax Officer, 59, Shradha Deep Society, Ward-3(2)(1), Surat Vs Singanpore, Causewayroad, Ved Road, Surat-395004 Pan No: Amupv 4454 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 16.01.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac”/Ld.Cit(A) Dated 28.12.2021 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 23.10.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing Tds Nirav B Vaghasiya Credit Of Rs.2,21,000 Though The Same Is Duly Reflected In Form No 26As Of The Appellant. 1.1 In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing The Tds Credit Of Rs.2,21,000 Though The Capital Gain On Sale Of Property Was Offered For Taxation In The Hands Of Partnership Form & No Revenue Loss Incurred To The Department. 1.2 In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing Tds Credit To The Appellant Though No Income Against Such Tds Credit Was Earned By The Appellant Against Such Tds Credit.

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 23.10.2019. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not allowing TDS

D V PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) D. V. Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit - 1, 748-749, Golden Plaza Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms Chaitali Shah, Ca Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2023

TDS. The scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, 1961 was completed on 15.02.2021. 3. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,( in brief ‘Ld PCIT’) has exercised his jurisdiction, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On perusal of the computation of income data available on ITBA portal

SHANKAR ZETHABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit(Central), 505, Sraynik Park Appartment, Rander Surat. Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cfepp7235M Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 15/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

143(3) of the Act in the case of the assessee for Asstt. Year 2018-19 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice bearing DIN and Notice No. ITBA/REV/F/REV1/2021-22/1039952311(1) dated 21.02.2022 was issued to the assessee, which

ITO, WARD-3(3)(3), SURAT vs. M/S. M D HOUSE BUILD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

143(3) of the Act. The assessee deducted tax at sources (TDS) wherever applicable, particularly on payment of labour charges. The assessee also relied on certain case law. 6. On the disallowance of loan processing charges, the assessee stated that Assessing Officer made disallowance only on presumption and allegation that there is no secured 8 M/s M.D. House Build loan

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

143(3) on 25/02/2016 by making total addition of Rs. 7,44,375/-. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, made addition of Rs. 16,972 and Rs. 50,000/- on account of interest received from nationalised bank i.e. State Bank of India which was claimed as exempt under Section 80P(2) Saurashtra Nagrik Dhiran Sahakari Mandli

RUGHNATHPURA SAURASHTRA NAGRIK DHIRAN SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), SURAT

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

143(3) on 25/02/2016 by making total addition of Rs. 7,44,375/-. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, made addition of Rs. 16,972 and Rs. 50,000/- on account of interest received from nationalised bank i.e. State Bank of India which was claimed as exempt under Section 80P(2) Saurashtra Nagrik Dhiran Sahakari Mandli