SHREE VEGAM URBAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The solitary issue required to be adjudicated by this Tribunal is that whether the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, for the interest received from the Co-operative Banks. In this case, an addition has been

AKSHAR INFRA,BHARUCH vs. ITO(TDS), BHARUCN, BHARUCH

In the result, the ground Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.276/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Akshar Infra Income Tax Officer (Tds), Bharuch, Hari Kunj, R.S.No.347, Old N.H.S. Vs Station Road, Bharuch- Nr. Samrajya School, 356069 Andada, Ankleshwar, Bharuch-393001 Pan No. Abbfa 5016 E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 201(1)/201(1A) on 28.07.2021 and also held liable to pay interest from the date on which Tax at Sources (TDS) was liable to be deducted. The Assessing Officer worked out @ 1% on total sale consideration at 4 Akshar Infra Rs.1,47,000/- and also calculated interest from 13.05.2015 to till July, 2021 i.e., for seventy-five months

M/S SEVEN EAGLE PRODUCTION,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Seven Eagle Production, The Assistant 5/6, Paras Shopping Centre, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Near.Gajera Circle, Katargam, Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat. Email:Srshethtax@Gmail.Com Surat – 395004. Pan: Abffs 0860 C Applicant Respondent

4 Sevan Eagle Production, Surat. by the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) left with no option, except to proceed to decide the issue and in absence of any evidence or explanation affirm the action of AO. In alternative submission, the ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that in case the Hon’ble Tribunal is deem appropriate, the assessee be directed

ESSAR STEEL LOGESTICS LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. CIT CIRCLE 1(1))1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.695/Srt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Essar Steel Logistics Limited, Vs Dy.Commissioner Of 27 Km Hazira, Surat Road, . Income Tax, [Circle- Hazira, Surat. 1(1)(1)], Surat. [Pan: Aadce 3876 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Bhanwala – Ca राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Ms. Usha Shrote – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.03.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 25.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat, Hereinafter Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)” Dated 27.08.2018 For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law On The Subject, Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.12,45,026/- U/S. 36(1)(Va) On Account Of Employees Pf Contribution. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.86,75,510/- On Account Of Undisclosed Receipt In Case Of Short Claim Of Tds Of Rs.1,73,511/-.

4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of the AO was affirmed. The action of AO was affirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in an ex-parte order. The ld. CIT (A) before passing the impugned Essar Steel Logistics Limited Vs. DCIT, ITA No.695/SRT/2018 for A.Y.2014-15 order noted that the assessee was given two opportunities

VALSAD DISTRICT CO.OP .BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. DY.CIT,VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for this assessment year

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meena

250 and Rs. 4, 02,909 is added to total income and credit of TDS deducted thereon allowed against payment of taxes. However, the AO viewed that the assessee has excluded exact amount of TDS deducted by the Banks. Therefore, it is established that the bank was aware of the said TDS, otherwise, it would not have been able

VALSAD DISTRICT CO.OP .BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. DY.CIT,VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for this assessment year

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meena

250 and Rs. 4, 02,909 is added to total income and credit of TDS deducted thereon allowed against payment of taxes. However, the AO viewed that the assessee has excluded exact amount of TDS deducted by the Banks. Therefore, it is established that the bank was aware of the said TDS, otherwise, it would not have been able

VALSAD DISTRICT CO.OP .BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. DY.CIT,VALSAD CIRCLE,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for this assessment year

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meena

250 and Rs. 4, 02,909 is added to total income and credit of TDS deducted thereon allowed against payment of taxes. However, the AO viewed that the assessee has excluded exact amount of TDS deducted by the Banks. Therefore, it is established that the bank was aware of the said TDS, otherwise, it would not have been able

M/S R. K. SHAH PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S R.K. Shah Project Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1St Floor, Aditya Complex, 2(1)(1), Vs Near Kapadia Health Club, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Bhatar Road, Surat-395007. Gate, Surat. Pan : Aabcr 8584 Q Applicant Respondent

TDS) while making interest payment to Kotak Mahindra Bank or non-banking finance company (NBFC). On appeal before ld. CIT(A) the action of the assessing officer was affirmed. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of assessing officer in ex-parte order by taking view that despite granting a number of opportunity the assessee failed to comply the notices

M/S.ACE RESORTS & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(1)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S. Ace Resorts & Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd., Ward-1(1) (1), Surat. Vs F-22/23, Jolly Arcade, Ghod Dod Road, Surat – 395001. Pan : Aafca 5790 H Applicant Respondent

TDS Rs.2,30,545/- 3. On appeal before the ld.CIT(A), the action of AO was upheld. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted for the want of compliance of various show cause notices. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before us. 4. The assessee, besides challenging the various additions/disallowance made in the assessment

SHRI GIRISHBHAI R PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Girishbhai R Patel, The Income Tax Officer, A-93, Pl-A, Pranek Garden, International Taxation, Vs. Panchasheel Encl. Anavil Business Centre, Dahanukarwadi Off. M.G. Road, Adajan, Surat. Mumbai Pan : Axnpp 4064 B Applicant Respondent

TDS amounting to Rs.41,121/- from total tax demand. 6) It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is non-resident Indian. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147. The case was reopened

MANSI RINKESHKUMAR RATHOD,SURAT vs. ITO, TDS, WARD-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.699/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) Mansi Rinkeshkumar Rathod, Vs. Tds, Cpc, Ayakar Bhawan, 4-A/2, Yogi Krupa Society, New Sector – 3, Up – 201010. Civil Road, Surat - 395007 Jurisdiction: Tds, Ward – 1, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ciapr0584A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/05/2025

4-A/2, Yogi Krupa Society, New Sector – 3, UP – 201010. Civil Road, Surat - 395007 Jurisdiction: TDS, Ward – 1, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: CIAPR0584A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 02/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal

INTERNATIONAL CREATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 14.05.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal, Addl/JCIT(A)-4 Kolkata [in short, the ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 201(1) r.w.s

VINAYLAL SHANKARLAL PRAJAPATI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Vinaylal Shankarlal Prajapati, I.T.O., Block No. 26, Plot No. 1, Shyam Raw Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. House, Godadara Road, Parvat Gam, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Abcpp 1291 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 2. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the appeal of assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) in an ex parte order without giving fair and reasonable opportunity

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.

4. 816 & 818/SRT/2024 2014-15 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd., 12/2881, Altret House, ITO, TDS, CPC Saiyedpura Main Road, Gujarat - 395003 PAN: AAECA7918E 5. 855/SRT/2024 2016-17 Altret Industries Pvt. Ltd., ITO, 12/2881, Altret House, TDS, CPC Saiyedpura Main Road, Gujarat - 395003 PAN: AAECA7918E Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement Shri Kishor Gheewala, CA Shri Ajay

THE UDHNA CITIZEN CO OPP. BANK LIMITED ,NOW MERGE WITH KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.OP. BANK LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. I.T.O TDS -2 , SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 201(1) r.w.s 201(1A) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the TDS AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The assessee

NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

250/- invoking section 69A & 69C of the Act as discussed in para 6.3 of the appellate order. 2. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.14,05,430/- being profits on “on-money” at 13% thereof u/s 69A of the Act as discussed in para 7.5 of the appellate order. 3. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

250/- invoking section 69A & 69C of the Act as discussed in para 6.3 of the appellate order. 2. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.14,05,430/- being profits on “on-money” at 13% thereof u/s 69A of the Act as discussed in para 7.5 of the appellate order. 3. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

250/- invoking section 69A & 69C of the Act as discussed in para 6.3 of the appellate order. 2. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.14,05,430/- being profits on “on-money” at 13% thereof u/s 69A of the Act as discussed in para 7.5 of the appellate order. 3. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred

GREENLINE ECOFAB PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1373/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Greenline Ecofab Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 406, Jeevan Deep, Opp. Sub- Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Vs. Jail, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 Surat, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg 2881 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 28.11.2024 by the National Face Less Appeal Centre (NFAC),Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s