HASMUKHBHAI RAVJIBHAI CHAUDHARI,MANDVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BARDOLI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.325/Srt/2022 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hasmukhbhai Ravjibhai Income Tax Officer, Chaudhari, Choramba, At Ward-2, Bardoli-394601 Vs Post Choramba Taluka Mandvi, Surat-394440 Pan No: Amipc 8927 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

TDS) under section 194C was deducted. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer was having belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment to the extent of Rs.14,27,800/-. The Assessing Officer after recording the reasons of re-opening issued notice under section 148 on 23.03.2018. The Assessing Officer recorded that despite service of notice

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

TDS). The Assessing Officer while finalizing the assessment order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act in the year

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

144,424 Deducted) 8 J.K.Infra (TDS Deducted) AMIPK0363Q 964,455 9 Jagdishbhai Kumbhani (TDS Deducted) DGDPKI168P 937,444 10 Jai Joganiya Explosive (TDS Deducted) AHDPJ4916C 108,318 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

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ROSHAN,,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, VAPI

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3153/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2007-08 Shri Vijay Kumar Roshan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-First Floor, Shreeji Ward, Silvasa Apartment Kilavani, Naka Silvasa Pan: Aempr 1339 H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

144 read with section 254 of Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short of “the Act”) dated 28.09.2015 by the Income-tax Officer, Ward- Silvasa (in short “the AO”). Vijay Kumar Roshan v. ITO-Silvasa/I.T.A. No.3153/Ahd/2016/A.Y.:07-08 Page 2 of 8 2. The grounds of appeal states that Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.61

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

TDS of Rs.88,226/- only instead of Rs.1,09,317/-. There was no response to the show-cause notices issued by the assessing officer and therefore, the assessment was completed under section 144

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”].

144 of the Act, it is mentioned that the provision of this section shall apply to the cases where the assessee’s books of account have been rejected u/s. 145(3) of the Act. 8. The appellant craves to add to, amend or alter the above ground as may be deemed necessary.” ITA.682/SRT/2019/AY.2014-15 Mohmedsadik A. Shaikh 3. We note that

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

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.12.2015. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in making addition of Rs.25,00,000/- on protective basis even when the source

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PAMECHA, AJMER

In the result the ground No

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

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

TDS has been deducted by the assessee under consideration. The assessee has not demonstrated any features like a pucca Arahita, even if the Rajesh Kr. Pamecha, Mukesh M. Sen, Anshuman M. Kumawat assessee is a pucca arahita ( for the sake of argument), it should be treated as a trader and benefit on account of commission agent should not be allowed

PARVATIBEN BHAGUBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7, VAPI, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Parvatiben Bhagubhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Dungri, Ponia Falia Udwada, Ward -7, Valsad – 396185. Vapi Pan : Afipp2146M Appellant Respondednt

section 144 by making addition on account of cash deposits as well as addition of salary income without appreciating the facts in a proper manner. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). The appeal was ITA. 497/SRT/2023/AY.2011-12 Parvatiben Bhagubhai Patel filed in 2019. The ld CIT(A)/ NFAC issued only one notice

ANIRUDH KESHAV DUBEY,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Anirudh Keshav Dubey, I.T.O., Flat No. 602, Leela Tower, Near Daman Vs. Vatsav Park, Rofel College, Namdha Road, Vapi- 396191 (Gujarat) Pan No. Aejpd 7924 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS was made under Section 194C of the Act. Further the assessee also had certain credit/ deposit in his bank account with State Bank of Patiala. On the basis of such information and perusal of ITS Data that no return of income was filed by assessee for A.Y. 2011-12, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons that income of assessee escaped

RAVINDRANTH J. MISHRA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the cash withdrawals and cheque payments and restricted the addition to a reasonable profit of 8% as laid down u/s 44AD of the Act. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the additions made by the AO amounting to Rs.8

ANILKUMAR HARISHANKAR PANDEY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.587/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Hearing) Anilkumr Harishankar Pandey Income Tax Officer, Okit Bi,38/A, Kailash Nagar Vs. Ward-2(3)(1), Surat, Room Society, Godadara Road, No.614, Aayakar Bhawan, Surat–394211 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akopp 3431C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

TDS has also been deducted by them (deductors) but the assessee has not offered tax thereon by not filing the return of income for A.Y 2010-11. 5. Since the assessee did not furnish any information and details before the assessing officer, therefore, assessing officer proceeded to make the assessment under section 144

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)

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 13.11.2018. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in making addition of Rs.10

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL COMPANY PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.451 To 453/Srt/2023 (Ays 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Deputy Commissioner Of Sarthana Zoon, Varachha Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs Road, Near Sarthana Jakat Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Naka, Surat-395006 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan : Aabce 0313 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 144 r.w.s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 30.11.2016, 20.12.2016 and 24.12.2018 respectively. With the consent of both the parties, all the appeals were clubbed, ITA Nos.451-453/SRT/2023 (A.Ys. 11-12,14-15 & 16-17) Engineering Professional Co.Pvt.Ltd. heard together and are decided by consolidated order to avoid conflicting decisions. 2. Rival submissions of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL COMPANY PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.451 To 453/Srt/2023 (Ays 2011-12, 2014-15 & 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Deputy Commissioner Of Sarthana Zoon, Varachha Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs Road, Near Sarthana Jakat Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Naka, Surat-395006 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan : Aabce 0313 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 144 r.w.s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 30.11.2016, 20.12.2016 and 24.12.2018 respectively. With the consent of both the parties, all the appeals were clubbed, ITA Nos.451-453/SRT/2023 (A.Ys. 11-12,14-15 & 16-17) Engineering Professional Co.Pvt.Ltd. heard together and are decided by consolidated order to avoid conflicting decisions. 2. Rival submissions of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee