ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT vs. SHRI ARVINDBHAI RATANBHAI MOKANI, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Arvindbhai Ratanbhai Mokani, Ward-3(3)(1), D-260-261, Vittal Nagar Society, Vs. Surat. Varachha Road, Hira Baug, Surat-395006. Pan No. Ahfpm 2302 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee further submitted that he is engaged in the business of yarn trading and was having bank account in HDFC bank, Varachha Road, Surat. The assessee made cash deposit on various dates in his bank account. The assessee furnished such details as per para 3.1 as recorded on page No. 5 of order

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)(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)(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

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

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

TDS for Rs.\n1,15,000/- in page 73 of A-23.\nxiii) The Respondent strongly relies on decision of PCIT V. Shri Kuberji Developers\n(IT (SS) A. No. 7 / SRT / 2024) (Paper book page No. 41 to 50) and DCIT V.\nHiteshkumar Laljibhai Patel (IT (SS) A. No. 114 / SRT / 2023) wherein addition\nwas made on the base

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

TDS for Rs.\n1,15,000/- in page 73 of A-23.\nxiii) The Respondent strongly relies on decision of PCIT V. Shri Kuberji Developers\n(IT (SS) A. No. 7 / SRT / 2024) (Paper book page No. 41 to 50) and DCIT V.\nHiteshkumar Laljibhai Patel (IT (SS) A. No. 114 / SRT / 2023) wherein addition\nwas made on the base

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

TDS for Rs.\n1,15,000/- in page 73 of A-23.\nxiii) The Respondent strongly relies on decision of PCIT V. Shri Kuberji Developers\n(IT (SS) A. No. 7 / SRT / 2024) (Paper book page No. 41 to 50) and DCIT V.\nHiteshkumar Laljibhai Patel (IT (SS) A. No. 114 / SRT / 2023) wherein addition\nwas made on the base

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURA, SURAT vs. PIPODRA TEXTILE PARK LLP, SURAT

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.795/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Acit, Vs. Pipodra Textile Park Llp, S No.85, Vilol. Lindiad, Tal: Central Circle-3, Mangrol, Surat - 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasfp8206B (Appellant) (Respondent) ""या"ेप सं /Co No.27/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (A/O Ita No.795/Srt/2024 Pipodra Textile Park Llp Vs. Acit, S No.85, Vilol. Lindiad, Tal: Central Circle-3, Mangrol, Surat– 395 002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasfp 8206 B (Co-Objector) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca राज"वक" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 29.05.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 4, Surat [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2018- 19, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assistant ITA No.795/Srt/2024 & CO 27/SRT/2024 A.Y 18-19 Pipodra Textile Park LLP Commissioner