STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS return for the SBI v. ACIT(CPC)Ghaziabad /I.T.A.No. 3419 to 3423/ AHD/2016/A.Y.-13 to 15-16 Page 4 of 16 assessment year 20131-14. However, the assessee is not in Stay Petition No. of notice for said matter, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal within the time allowed for filing of appeals The reasons for delay

STATE BANK OF INDIA (AHWA BRANCH),,DANG vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS return for the SBI v. ACIT(CPC)Ghaziabad /I.T.A.No. 3419 to 3423/ AHD/2016/A.Y.-13 to 15-16 Page 4 of 16 assessment year 20131-14. However, the assessee is not in Stay Petition No. of notice for said matter, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal within the time allowed for filing of appeals The reasons for delay

STATE BANK OF INDIA (VYARA BRANCH),,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3419 & 3420/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 & 2014-15 State Bank Of India, Assistant Commissioner Vyara Branch, Navsari Of Income Tax(Cpc) Pan: Aaacs 8577 K Ghaziabad अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS return for the SBI v. ACIT(CPC)Ghaziabad /I.T.A.No. 3419 to 3423/ AHD/2016/A.Y.-13 to 15-16 Page 4 of 16 assessment year 20131-14. However, the assessee is not in Stay Petition No. of notice for said matter, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal within the time allowed for filing of appeals The reasons for delay

SHREE ABHISHEK BIPINBHAI NAIK,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Abhishek Bipinbhai Naik I.T.O., (Prop. Of M/S Shivbhole Services), Ward 1(2)(1), Vs. House No. 1, Desai Faliyu, At Po Surat. Vaktana, Tal, Choryasi Via Sachin, Surat-394230. Pan No. Agppn 5994 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

249/-. The assessee filed revised return on 24/02/2018 declaring same income. The return was again revised on 01/08/2018 declaring income of Rs. 2,91,130/- by showing income from other sources. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has made cash deposit in his bank accounts during demonetization period

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) Si. No.

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place' where appellants can approach whenever they want

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)

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd. days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place’ where appellants can approach whenever

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

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

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd. days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place’ where appellants can approach whenever

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALTRET HOUSE, SAIYEDPURA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

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

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd. days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place’ where appellants can approach whenever

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

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

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd. days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place’ where appellants can approach whenever

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

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

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd. days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place’ where appellants can approach whenever

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)

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd. days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place’ where appellants can approach whenever

GEETA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), SURAT., SURAT

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1322/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Geeta Prints Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 150, Gidc, Pandesara, Vs. Ward -1(1)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Surat-394 221 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg 88182R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025

TDS and also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 4. The learned Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax was not justifying making an addition of Rs.4,37,290/- on account of late payment of employees’ contribution to PF & ESIC and also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 5. The learned Asst. Commissioner

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

249,421 7 Amount paid to various small parties 4.502J07 amount not more that Rs. 1.00 lacs (Total 1 1 6 parties) 8 Daily Wages & Labour Charges - 83,152,162 TOTAL 95,491,190 192B - TDS on Salary: 1-Apr-2017 to 31-Mar-2018 Sr. Name Amount No. 1 Rajesh Kumar Jain (TDS Not Applicable) ACDPJ4261D

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Si. No.

section 249(3) of the Act, the CIT(A) may admit appeal after expiration of the period of 30 days, if the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within the period of 30 days. The CIT(A) observed that the Courts and Appellate Authorities are not ‘walk-in-place' where appellants can approach whenever they want

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS 47,025/- ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on above additions / disallowances for concealment of income and issued notices u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act on 13.02.2017. 5. During the penalty proceedings, the assessing officer held that

SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS 47,025/- ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on above additions / disallowances for concealment of income and issued notices u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act on 13.02.2017. 5. During the penalty proceedings, the assessing officer held that

SHRI PIYUSHKUMAR AMBALAL SHROFF,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, BHARUAH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1692/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Piyushkumr A. Shroff (Huf), V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Ketan H Shah, Advocate, . Income-Tax, 93 Sapphire Complex, C G Road, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 Pan: Aachp 9491 E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 271(1)(c). In view of this matter, CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty. 5. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee referred Paper Book Page No. 42, which is working of interest on FDRs. According to which, the assessee has offered interest on FDRs on accrual basis in Piyush

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

TDS certificate dated 11.04.2008 bearing certificate No. 7195 wherein it is stated under “NATURE OF PAYMENT “as Contractor Bill may be read as “Compulsory acquisition” (Land/Building). Any inconvenience on account of same may kindly be excused. Therefore, it was contended that the agricultural land in question was acquired under compulsory acquisition hence; no long-term capital gain is chargeable