RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as also law on subject, the DCIT, CPC TDS should have initiated separate proceedings under section

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as also law on subject, the DCIT, CPC TDS should have initiated separate proceedings under section

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as also law on subject, the DCIT, CPC TDS should have initiated separate proceedings under section

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as also law on subject, the DCIT, CPC TDS should have initiated separate proceedings under section

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

3 ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala assessee submits that the levy of late fee under section 234E in furnishing the statements of TDS

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

3 ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala assessee submits that the levy of late fee under section 234E in furnishing the statements of TDS

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

3 ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala assessee submits that the levy of late fee under section 234E in furnishing the statements of TDS

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

3 ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala assessee submits that the levy of late fee under section 234E in furnishing the statements of TDS

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

3 ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala assessee submits that the levy of late fee under section 234E in furnishing the statements of TDS

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

section 50C(1) of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that the order of PCIT may be upheld. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by the parties. It is clear from the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

section 143 (3) of the Act of even date. The learned counsel for the assessee referred point no. 9 at 13. Page No. 3 of appellate order wherein Ld. CIT (A) has mentioned the claim of the assessee that it is surprising that cash deposits of Rs. 15, 00,000/- in the case of M/s. Kejriwal Dyeing & Printing Mills

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

TDS under section 194-IA of the Act. The assessee further submitted that all the four co-owners filed their respective ITR in the following manner: Sr.No. Seller PAN Return filed on 1 C.N.Patel AARPP5332R 13th July 2016 2 P.N.Vaghasiya ABAPV3969L 20th Sep. 2016 3

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

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

SHRI BIPINCHANDRA HIRALAL THAKKAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2126/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Ay.: (2013-14) Shri Bipinchandra Hiralal Thakkar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.60/61, Hari Ichha Society, Ward-1(2)6, Surat. Udhna Bhestan Road, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpt1432D (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the tune of Rs.11,59,064/-. Now, the question before us is that whether the assessee can take the advantage provided in section 44AD of the Act? Let us, first of all, consult the provisions of section 44AD of the Act, which is reproduced below (to the extent relevant

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 4 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court - Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.262/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., V The Income Tax Officer, C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, S Ward-2(1)(2), Surat. Timaliyawad, Nanpura, . Surat – 395 001. [Pan: Aaics 8963 M] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Manish J.Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

TDS under section 37 and disallowance of Rs.61,883/- under section 14A of the Act. On appeal before ld. CIT(A), the action of the A.O. was upheld. 3

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

TDS, the assessee was treated as “assessee in default” and accordingly demand of Rs.4,77,114/- was raised vide order dated 29.03.2019 under the provision of section 201(1) r.w.s 201(1A) of the Act. 3

VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED,VAPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VALSAD

In the result, various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Pr.C.I.T., Valsad. 135, 1St Floor, Via House, G.I.D.C. 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Vs. Char Rasta, Vapi, Gujarat, Arcade, Shanti Nagar, India-396195. Tithal Road, Pan: Aaacv 8289 P Valsad-396001. Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3) by making addition on account of mutuality of Rs. 9.09 Crore and disallowing depreciation of Rs. 4.19 Crore. The assessee again filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the additions were deleted by holding that effluent treatment charges collected from the members are in the nature of receipt of mutual association and the addition

VIKRAM HARSHADBHAI MODI,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(5), SURAT

In the result, Ground No.2 and 3 of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Vikram Harshadbhai The Income Tax Officer Modi, Ward-3(1)(5), Aaykar Vs 7/2737, Chandulal Sheth Ni Bhavan, Majura Gate, Sheri, Saiyedpura, Surat-395001 Surat-395003 Pan : Alhpm 2036 Q Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

3 relates to upholding the addition @15% of contract receipt of Rs.20.05 lakhs. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that addition made by AO on the contract receipt @15% is excessive. The assessee is carrying the business of job work of foil printing and received contract receipt of Rs.20.05 lakhs on which TDS was made under section