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.

TDS - CPC (in short, 'AO') raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

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)

TDS - CPC (in short, ‘AO’) raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

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)

TDS - CPC (in short, ‘AO’) raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

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)

TDS - CPC (in short, ‘AO’) raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

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)

TDS - CPC (in short, ‘AO’) raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

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)

TDS - CPC (in short, ‘AO’) raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

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)

TDS - CPC (in short, ‘AO’) raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

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

2. The above appeals were heard together and being decides by common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. I.T.A.No. 3419/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 2013-14; 3. The Ground No. 1 relates to non condoning delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT (A) found that there is delay in these appeal ranging between

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

2. The above appeals were heard together and being decides by common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. I.T.A.No. 3419/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 2013-14; 3. The Ground No. 1 relates to non condoning delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT (A) found that there is delay in these appeal ranging between

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

2. The above appeals were heard together and being decides by common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. I.T.A.No. 3419/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 2013-14; 3. The Ground No. 1 relates to non condoning delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT (A) found that there is delay in these appeal ranging between

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

2. The above appeals were heard together and being decides by common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. I.T.A.No. 3419/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 2013-14; 3. The Ground No. 1 relates to non condoning delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT (A) found that there is delay in these appeal ranging between

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

2. The above appeals were heard together and being decides by common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. I.T.A.No. 3419/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 2013-14; 3. The Ground No. 1 relates to non condoning delay in filing of appeal before CIT (A). 4. The assessee submitted before the CIT (A) found that there is delay in these appeal ranging between

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.

TDS - CPC (in short, 'AO') raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

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

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 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

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

2 of 6 of undisclosed income from commission and brokerage. The AO also initiated penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act on this account. The CIT (A) as well as ITAT confirmed both the addition. Thereafter, the AO imposed penalty of Rs. 3,04,750. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT (A). However