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)

194C of the I.T. Act 1961. Therefore, assessing officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain the reasons for non-deduction of TDS. 4. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed written submissions before the assessing officer, which is reproduced below (to the extent relevant for our analysis): "During the year under assessment

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

TDS) under section 194C of the Act. As no return of income was filed in response of notice under section 148 the assessing officer proceeded for assessment. The Assessing Officer considered the entire receipt as total turnover of assessee and issued further show cause notice as to why 15% of 2 Sh.Vikram Harshadbhai Modi total receipts should not be treated

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.

TDS of Rs. 3,694/- under section 194C. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 738,882/-, which is double addition of contractual receipt, it may be due to the fact that Assessing Officer may have received information twice from different sources. In fact, the assessees total 6

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

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

section 194C in respect of payment to Focus Trade Fairs P. Ltd. as evident in ledger account of the said party and TDS certificate (Form 16A). Therefore, at the most it can be treated as a case of “shortfall in 6

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. 3,60,57,206/- by Parth Corporation to 258 Labour Contractor. Thus, the assessing officer disallowed Rs. 5,28,86,206/-on account of labour expenses

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

194C and 194J of the Act are applicable to these expenses. However, the AO has not examined the same and not disallowed any amount u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Since the assessee failed to deduct tax on such expenditure, the AO should have disallowed an amount of Rs.48,04,045/-, being 30% of total expenses of Rs.1

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)

194C of the income tax Act provides that" if tax is to he deducted either at the time of credit of such a sum to the account of the payee, or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of cheque or by any other mode whichever i$ earlier". By following this clause weal Developers, Synergy Developers

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

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

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

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 assessment. Notice under Section

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

Section 11 of the Act to that extent. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition and upholding the denial of exemption, whereas the Revenue is aggrieved by the deletion

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

Section 11 of the Act to that extent. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition and upholding the denial of exemption, whereas the Revenue is aggrieved by the deletion

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)

TDS on the same. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses towards Employees contribution to provident fund/shortfall Rs.29,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee is using this fund to cover up shortfall and pay employees contribution which is in fact

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)

TDS on the same. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses towards Employees contribution to provident fund/shortfall Rs.29,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee is using this fund to cover up shortfall and pay employees contribution which is in fact

MEGA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

section 194C will not come into picture as per the contentions of the ld. A.R. 9. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). I.T.A No.988/Srt/2024 Mega Automobile Pvt. Ltd., A.Y.2017-18 We have heard both the parties and perused all the 10. relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that

KISHOR RAMESHBHAI MEHTA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

6. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.4,42,627/- on account of non-deducted TDS on interest payment to finance company u/s 194A. Expenses disallowed