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

TDS. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by taking view that there is non- compliance on the part of the assessee. We further find that before the AO, the assessee raised factual and legal submission. The ld CIT(A) has not seen and examined such facts and affirmed the action of AO. Before

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

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. VALENCIA CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) A.C.I.T. M/S Valencia Corporation, Central Circle-4, S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu-Rundh Vs. Surat. Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant Respondednt C.O. No. 17/Srt/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 257/Srt/2022)(Ay: 2016-17) M/S Valencia Corporation, A.C.I.T. S. No. 400, T.P. No. 29 (Vesu- Central Circle-4, Vs. Rundh Magdalla), F.P. No. 45/2, Surat. Nr. Siddhivinayak Temple, Vesu, Surat (Gujarat) Pan : Aakfv 2329 K Appellant/Objector Respondednt

250(5). 4. In addition and alternative to cross objection No. 1, 2, & 3, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts that entire amount of Rs. 2,56,70,912/- pertains to works contractor(i.e. Konark Infratech) and TDS was deducted in concern

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

6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts are that assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1.47 crores at Moje Andada vide sale deed dated 2 Akshar Infra 13.05.2015 from four persons/ co-owners namely R.C. Padshala, P.N. Vaghasia, M.A Vaghasia

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

TDS made on such interest and the amount received and repaid during the year. Such details are recorded by ld CITA) at page No. 18 & 19 of his order. The assessee also stated that the assessing officer considered only peak of all transaction and made addition of Rs. 4.15 Crore in AY 2010-11 and Rs. 2.14 Crore

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

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer issued notice dated 31/03/2023 for making submission on or before 24/03/203. The assessee requested adjournment up to 8th April,2023. However, the ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 30/03/2023 by taking a view that despite granting three opportunities, the assessee

S K KABRA & COMPANY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.502/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) S. K. Kabra & Company, The Ito, Vs. 101, “Kauttilya” Plot No.327, Ward-1(2)(1), Opp. Noble Paper, Khatodara, Surat Surat – 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfs6674D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘The Nfac’), Delhi, Dated 17.05.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Central Processing Centre (In Short ‘Cpc’), Bengaluru, U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 11.07.2018. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Is Barred By Limitation By Six (6) Days. Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted A Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. The Contents Of The Said Petition Are Reproduced Below:

6. On merit, Ld. Counsel submitted that in assessee`s case, the order (Intimation) under section 143(1) of the Act, was passed by the CPC, Bengaluru, which contains the issue relating to TDS mismatch. The assessee could not file the reconciliation of TDS before CPC, Bengaluru. On appeal by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action

TIRUPATI ENTERPRISE,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1064/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Tirupati Enterprise Income Tax Officer, Ward- 24, Centre Point, Vapi-Silvassa Silvassa, Tokarkhada, बनाम Road (Amli), Silvassa-396 230, Samarvarni, Silvassa, Dadra & Vs Dadra & Nagar Haveli (Ut) Nagar Haveli & Daman & [Pan : Aadft 9754 B] Diu-396 230 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

TDS interest paid to NBFC. The assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) in the year 2020. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in a non-speaking order. In para-4 of impugned order, Ld. CIT(A) recorded that assessee requested for adjournment in January, 2021 and that no other notices were complied. The Ld. AR of the assessee

DINESHKUMAR UJABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS 3, , AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.388 & 389/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Dineshkumar Ujabhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, At-Surajpura, Po.Songra, Tal: Tds-3, Palanpur, Banaskantha, Gujarat, Ahmedabad India Residential Address: B-303, Saroj Park, Opp. Gali Tower, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajbpp4111H (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS-3, Palanpur, Banaskantha, Gujarat, Ahmedabad India Residential Address: B-303, Saroj Park, Opp. Gali Tower, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AJBPP4111H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Bipin Jariwala, AR Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Respondent by Date of Hearing 06/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement 08/09/2023 आदेश

DINESHKUMAR UJABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS 3, , AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.388 & 389/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Dineshkumar Ujabhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, At-Surajpura, Po.Songra, Tal: Tds-3, Palanpur, Banaskantha, Gujarat, Ahmedabad India Residential Address: B-303, Saroj Park, Opp. Gali Tower, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajbpp4111H (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS-3, Palanpur, Banaskantha, Gujarat, Ahmedabad India Residential Address: B-303, Saroj Park, Opp. Gali Tower, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AJBPP4111H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Bipin Jariwala, AR Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Respondent by Date of Hearing 06/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement 08/09/2023 आदेश

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)

6. Aggrieved by the order of AO u/s.201(1) rws 201(1A) of the Act, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) after hearing the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee and on perusing the submissions made by him observed that the provision of Section 194 of the Act was squarely applicable in the case of the assessee

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

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad with regards to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on addition made of 5% of total purchase value to the tune of Rs. 43,83,431/- from

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

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

SIDDHA CONSTRUCTION,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI (UT) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE , VAPI

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 2012-13. 2. Heard arguments of both parties and perused the record. In this case, the addition of Rs.34,50,000/- on account of unsecured loan received from the assessee. In the present case, the assessment under section 143(3) has been conducted