DESAI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing

VALSAD DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OP. BANK LTD.,,VALSAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O. P. Meena

17,159 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. Succinctly, facts as culled out from the orders of lower authorities are that the assessee bank has not deducted TDS

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

17 Prakash Patel (TDS Deducted) CTGPP720SK 470,000 18 Rajeshkumar Pawar (TDS Deducted) BAZPP4070P 998,094 19 Rakeshbhai Dulabhai Kathiriya (TDS BSXPK0276Q 1,396,596 Deducted) 20 Sarla Awasthi (TDS Deducted) AYLPA4709K 113,000 21 Sumit Enterprise (TDS Deducted) BTNPS9032B 1,320,991 22 Tarun Bala Jain (TDS Deducted) AXKPJ7707N 128,200 23 Vekariya Construction (TDS Deducted) AYRPV9534B

SHRI AYUSH MURALILAL AGARWAL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2622/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Ayush Murarilal Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Brijvilla Bunglow, Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(3)(1) Surat B/H Gokul Row House, Parley Point Surat 395 007 [Pan: Acypa 9649 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala - Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri B. P. K. Panda, Sr. D.R.

TDS provisions as per Explain –L to section 194C are applicable only if total turnover in immediately preceding financial year is exceeded Rs. 40 lac. The perusal of Profit & Loss Account and balance sheet for the assessment year 2008-09 filed by the assessee appearing at Paper Book Page No. 5 to 9 shows that total turnover during assessment year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.,-3, SURAT vs. SHRI PANNALAL MAHENDRA KOTHARI, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Pannalal Mahendra Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Kothari, 8A, Abhishek Vs Room No.507, 5Thfloor, Apartment, S.D. Road, Ayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat Surat-395001 Pan : Aizpk 3155 F Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

TDS 95,17,200 84,17,105 13,11,000 4. It was also explained that major amount of consideration was financed and rest of the payment was made from self-finance (own sources). The transaction recorded in loose sheet (seized 6 Pannalal M Kothari (A.Y 16-17) document) from third party who is the parties to the registered sale

BANK OF INDIA,SURAT vs. ITO (TDS-1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

section 201(1) for non- deduction of tax and created a demand of Rs.83,442/- in the following manner:- Sr. Payee of interest Amount of TDS to be TDS Demand u/s No. interest paid deducted @ 1% deducted 201(1) 1 Ashish Varma 200094 20009 0 20009 2 Kunjgali Trust 250929 25093 0 25093 3 Revaben Ramanbhai

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

section 201(1) for non- deduction of tax and created a demand of Rs.83,442/- in the following manner:- Sr. Payee of interest Amount of TDS to be TDS Demand u/s No. interest paid deducted @ 1% deducted 201(1) 1 Ashish Varma 200094 20009 0 20009 2 Kunjgali Trust 250929 25093 0 25093 3 Revaben Ramanbhai

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

section 201(1) for non- deduction of tax and created a demand of Rs.83,442/- in the following manner:- Sr. Payee of interest Amount of TDS to be TDS Demand u/s No. interest paid deducted @ 1% deducted 201(1) 1 Ashish Varma 200094 20009 0 20009 2 Kunjgali Trust 250929 25093 0 25093 3 Revaben Ramanbhai

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

section 201(1) for non- deduction of tax and created a demand of Rs.83,442/- in the following manner:- Sr. Payee of interest Amount of TDS to be TDS Demand u/s No. interest paid deducted @ 1% deducted 201(1) 1 Ashish Varma 200094 20009 0 20009 2 Kunjgali Trust 250929 25093 0 25093 3 Revaben Ramanbhai