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

194C, 194J and 192 of the Act respectively. Non-deduction of TDS attracts provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and 30% of Rs.31,11,76,823/- was required to be added under the head ‘Profits and gains of a business and profession’. This has resulted in short levy of tax of Rs.4

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

3 relates to upholding the addition @15% of contract receipt of Rs.20.05 lakhs. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that addition made by AO on the contract receipt @15% is excessive. The assessee is carrying the business of job work of foil printing and received contract receipt of Rs.20.05 lakhs on which TDS was made under section 194C

SHRI BALAJI J BHAGNURE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Balaji J. Bhagnure Income Tax Officer, 98, Santkrupa Society, In Ward-2(3)(1) Aayakar Vs Lane Of Mahadev Mandir, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Godadara Devadh Road, Surat-395001 Godadara, Surat-394210 Pan No: Alkpb 8794 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 27.12.2022 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 [For Short To As “Nfac/ Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 26.07.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 11.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Reopening Assessment By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The I.T. Act 1961. Sh. Balaji J Bhagnure 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The I.T. Act.

3,96,441/- on which TDS was made @ 10% under section 194C. The receipt is nominal and the income of assessee

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)

3 Job work party 1,47,718 15,038 Jobwork Charges paid to one party for which TDS provisions u/s. 194C is not applicable as the amount paid is below Rs.30,000/- 1,31,680 Other Jobwork Charges Total Addition 11,59,064 11,59,064 9. Miss Anupama Singla, Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue, has contended that turnover

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, 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)

section 143(3) of ITA Nos.590/SRT/2019 & 4/SRT/2020 The Surat Dist. Co.op Bank Ltd. the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 28.01.2014. 2. Since, the issues involved in these two appeals, are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience

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)

section 143(3) of ITA Nos.590/SRT/2019 & 4/SRT/2020 The Surat Dist. Co.op Bank Ltd. the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 28.01.2014. 2. Since, the issues involved in these two appeals, are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience

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 sale Received sales booked deducted(Rs.) of services(Rs.) 1. Weal Developers 1526795 30557 1175280 F.Y. 203-14 2. Synegry Developers 1000650 20013 997877 F.Y. 2014-15 3. Sar Infracon 5241574 104831 5031461 F.Y. 2014-15 GurangYogeshbhai 4. 8124446 162489 0 F.Y. 2012-13 Shah HaziraLng Pvt Ltd 1686271 36556 0 F.Y 2012-13 1. Section 194C

LITECON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.220/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Litecon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Surat, 1, 123, 1St Floor, Aaykar Block No.255, Navi Pardi, B/H Vs. Kamrej Sugar, Joy N Joy Road, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395002 Kamrej, Surat-394150 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcl 8007 A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

section 194C of the Act. So, 30% of the expenditure worked out to Rs.70,69,910/- (30% of Rs.2,35,66,362/-) was required to be disallowed. As ITA No.220/SRT/2023 AY.18-19 Litecon Industries P.Ltd. per ld PCIT, the details of the payment made to various entries where TDS on expenditure is not made, are as under: Sr.No. Name PAN Amount

JAVAHARLAL S DHARIWAL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.203/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Javaharlal S Dhariwal Income Tax Officer, 886 Old Gidc, Nr. Bank Of Ward-1(2)(2), Surat-395001 Vs Baroda, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Pan No: Aaypd 4207 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mahul Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 28.04.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [For Short To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 30.01.2020 For Assessment Year 2013- 14, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)(2), Surat/Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making A Disallowance Of Rs.3,45,378/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. Javaharlal S Dhariwal 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer By Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.2,46,915/- Out Of Total Disallowance Of Rs.4,93,830/- On Account Of Machinery Salary Expenses. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.3,95,466/- Being Interest Expenses Claimed U/S 57 Of The Act.

TDS) as required under section 194C 2 Javaharlal S Dhariwal r.w.s. 194A of the Act. The assessee was given show cause by the assessing officer as to such expenses may not be disallowed. The assessing officer recorded that no response was made nor any detailed like PAN, or addresses of the parties were furnished. The Assessing Officer in absence

M/S. K.N. DIAMOND,,BILIMORA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1788/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S K.N.Diamond, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Soniwad, Bilimora, Of Income Tax, Navsari Navsari – 396 321. Circle, Navsari. [Pan: Aadfk 3167 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Parimalsinh Parmar – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

194C for the impugned payment and furnished the ledger account of the said party along with the copy of TDS certificate under Form-16A. It was argued before us, that at the most it can be a short deduction of tax, and any difference of opinion as to taxability of any item or nature of payments, then the assessee

THE ITO, WARD-1,, NA vs. ARIVS.SHRI ANILKUMAR AMRUTLAL CHAHWALA, NAVSARI

In the result, this ground of appeal is rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2078/Ahd/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1003/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Amrutlal Chahwala, Ward-(1), Navsari. 102, Trimurti Complex, Vijalpore, Navsari. [Pan: Abnpc 6308 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

TDS (tax deduction at source) as required under section 194C was of Rs. 5,28,86,206/-, which consist of Rs. 1,68,29,000/- by Padmavati Gems to 187 Labour Contractor and Rs. 3

ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT vs. M/S. SATYAM ENTERPRISE, SURAT

In the result, this part of issue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., M/S Satyam Enterprise, Ward- 3(3)(4), 182-Thakordwar Society, Nr. Vs. Surat. Spinning Mill, Varachha Road, Surat. Pan No. Abvfs 5076 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS @ 1% under Section 194C ought to have deducted by assessee, however, the same was not deducted. After going through the list of 11 parties, the assessee furnished the details of all parties who have paid the tax on such receipt, however, the Assessing Officer not considered and passed the assessment order hurriedly without considering that all the parties have

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 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

TDS under section 194C on payments made to 6 sub- contractors amounting to Rs. 61,02,981. Therefore, the AO disallowed the said payments under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT (A) in his order dtd. 24.08.2010 upheld the order of the AO thereby disregarded the additional evidence filed under Rule Vijay Kumar Roshan v. ITO-Silvasa

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-SURAT, SURAT vs. ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

3– Assessing Officer on account of alleged short declaration of contractual receipts, holding that the difference stood reconciled, he upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest-free advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- given to the trustee, thereby sustaining

ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL,SURAT vs. CIT EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

3– Assessing Officer on account of alleged short declaration of contractual receipts, holding that the difference stood reconciled, he upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest-free advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- given to the trustee, thereby sustaining

N R CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.526/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) N. R. Corporation, Vs. The Pcit - 1, B-202, Capital Status, Opp – Hariom Surat Nagar, Near Atman Park, L. P. Savani Road, Adajan, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamfn9368A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

3) of the Act accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT called for the records and noted that the case was selected for complete scrutiny on the issue of income from real estate. On verification of the return, ld. PCIT found that assessee had claimed labour expenses of Rs.1,33,59,652/-, architect fees of Rs.8