DINABEN DILIPKUMAR PATEL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, ground related to the credit entry of Rs

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 148 as well as other notices were served. The Assessing Officer passed the ex parte assessment order. On obtaining the copy of assessment order, it was found that her maternal address at 16, Shree Nikunj, Ashabaug, Navsari was mentioned. No one resides on such address. The assessee married long ago and was staying with her husband

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , TDS, CPC, SURAT

1) of the Act by the AO (TDS – CPC) for various impugned AYs.\n7.1 The Id. AR has relied on the decisions in cases of Jamini Ashokkumar\nDave (supra), Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation & Entrepreneurship (supra),\nChhering Tomdan (Supra) and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji\n(supra). In case of Jamini Ashokkumar Dave (supra), the question of service

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

SHRI ANIL OMPRAKASH MISHRA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Anil Om Prakash Mishra, I.T.O., A-281, Shubham Bunglows, Sachin, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Surat-394230. Surat. Pan No. Ajnpm 7661 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

1,50,000/- under Section 271B vide order dated 27/06/2019. 3. Before levying penalty, the Assessing Officer recorded that in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income declaring income of Rs. 4,76,200/-. The assessee was engaged in the business of job work in the name of M/s Shree

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

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.

1) was also issued along with the detailed questionnaire to the assessee calling for various details, clarifications etc. In response to the notices issued, the assessee has filed the details called for. The details are placed on the record. The assessee firm was engaged in the business of trading in diamonds. During the assessment proceedings, as requested by the assessee

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.

1) was also issued along with the detailed questionnaire to the assessee calling for various details, clarifications etc. In response to the notices issued, the assessee has filed the details called for. The details are placed on the record. The assessee firm was engaged in the business of trading in diamonds. During the assessment proceedings, as requested by the assessee

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.

1) was also issued along with the detailed questionnaire to the assessee calling for various details, clarifications etc. In response to the notices issued, the assessee has filed the details called for. The details are placed on the record. The assessee firm was engaged in the business of trading in diamonds. During the assessment proceedings, as requested by the assessee

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.

1) was also issued along with the detailed questionnaire to the assessee calling for various details, clarifications etc. In response to the notices issued, the assessee has filed the details called for. The details are placed on the record. The assessee firm was engaged in the business of trading in diamonds. During the assessment proceedings, as requested by the assessee

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.

1) was also issued along with the detailed questionnaire to the assessee calling for various details, clarifications etc. In response to the notices issued, the assessee has filed the details called for. The details are placed on the record. The assessee firm was engaged in the business of trading in diamonds. During the assessment proceedings, as requested by the assessee

M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE CIT-I, BARODA

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS Rs.38,48,436/-/-) payable on the loan received from Reliance Industries Limited. (RXL) was capatilized and was added to loan amount. Since the amount of interest was not actually paid and the loan amount to that extent increased, the interest amount so claimed u/s 36(l)(iii) was required to be disallowed. Not doing this resulted into underassessment

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS Rs.38,48,436/-/-) payable on the loan received from Reliance Industries Limited. (RXL) was capatilized and was added to loan amount. Since the amount of interest was not actually paid and the loan amount to that extent increased, the interest amount so claimed u/s 36(l)(iii) was required to be disallowed. Not doing this resulted into underassessment

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

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case as well as the law on subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

1) of the Act by the AO (TDS – CPC) for various impugned AYs.\n7.1 The Id. AR has relied on the decisions in cases of Jamini Ashokkumar\nDave (supra), Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation & Entrepreneurship (supra),\nChhering Tomdan (Supra) and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji\n(supra). In case of Jamini Ashokkumar Dave (supra), the question of service

DHANSUKHBHAI PARAGJIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1021/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dhansukhbhai Deputy Commissioner Of Paragjibhai Patel, Income-Tax, 143, Brahaman Faliya, Circle - 2(3) Surat Dindoli Udhna 394210 Pan: Avdpp7007 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1,26,80,000.. Therefore, the AO has considered the long-term capital gain accrued in A.Y. 2009-10. The filed original return of income on 31.03.2012. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee replied the original return of income filed may be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148

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

TDS out of Rs. 70 lacs. The amount actually paid is evident from the bank statement as explained herein above. 3. Your honour has raised another issue that assessee has shown the turnover of Rs.31,35,000/- for the purpose of section 44AD whereas the credit entries appearing in bank accounts is Rs.1,20,44,870/- including cash deposit

SHRI DINESHBHAI VITTALBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.970/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dineshbhai Vittalbhai Income Tax Officer, Patel, Ward- 2(3)(7), Surat 6/1261, Bhut Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat Pan: Aatwpp 3597J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1,26,80,000.. Therefore, the AO has considered the long-term capital gain accrued in A.Y. 2009-10. The filed original return of income on 31.03.2012. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee replied the original return of income filed may be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

1) of the Act by the AO (TDS – CPC) for various impugned AYs. 7.1 The ld. AR has relied on the decisions in cases of Jamini Ashokkumar Dave (supra), Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation & Entrepreneurship (supra), Chhering Tomdan (Supra) and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra). In case of Jamini Ashokkumar Dave (supra), the question of service of notice