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

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in\nshort, 'the Act') by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years\n(AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals\nbefore the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

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

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in\nshort, 'the Act') by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals) - 9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years\n(AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals\nbefore the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') by\nthe National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals) [in short, “NFAC/CIT(E)”] all dated 13.08.2024, for the Assessment\nYears (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of\nassessment orders passed by Assessing Officer (in short

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO, DAMAN

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') by\nthe National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Appeals) [in short, “NFAC/CIT(E)”] all dated 13.08.2024, for the Assessment\nYears (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of\nassessment orders passed by Assessing Officer (in short

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

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

250/- invoking section 69A & 69C of the Act as\ndiscussed in para 6.3 of the appellate order.\n2. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.14,05,430/-\nbeing profits on “on-money” at 13% thereof u/s 69A of the Act as discussed in\npara 7.5 of the appellate order.\n3. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred

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

250/- invoking section 69A & 69C of the Act as\ndiscussed in para 6.3 of the appellate order.\n2. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.14,05,430/-\nbeing profits on “on-money” at 13% thereof u/s 69A of the Act as discussed in\npara 7.5 of the appellate order.\n3. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred

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

250/- invoking section 69A & 69C of the Act as\ndiscussed in para 6.3 of the appellate order.\n2. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs.14,05,430/-\nbeing profits on “on-money” at 13% thereof u/s 69A of the Act as discussed in\npara 7.5 of the appellate order.\n3. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred

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