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

TDS has been deducted or Form 26A or some daily wage payment sheets or daily wage registers of daily wages or labour charges of Rs.8,31,52,162/- have been submitted by the appellant to the PCIT. The daily wages and labour charges are paid to small labourers on daily basis and therefore provisions of section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIR. -4, SURAT vs. SHRI HITESHKUMAR LALJIBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.295/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Shri Hiteshkumar Laljibhai Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat, Room Patel, 52, Narayanmuni Nagar Vs No.508, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Society, Nani Ved Road, Surat- Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395004 Pan Aanpp 3560 B 395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was held that assessee was owner of the vehicle and they used them in their business purpose and therefore entitled for depreciation thereon. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee held that sale consideration of land was credited in the books of account of firm Paramhansh

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

section 201(3) has to be calculated from the last revised statement, we find that on similar ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat submission, the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while considering the similar objection of Revenue held that such correction

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

section 201(3) has to be calculated from the last revised statement, we find that on similar ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat submission, the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while considering the similar objection of Revenue held that such correction

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

section 201(3) has to be calculated from the last revised statement, we find that on similar ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat submission, the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while considering the similar objection of Revenue held that such correction

BANK OF INDIA,SURAT vs. ITO (TDS-1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

section 201(3) has to be calculated from the last revised statement, we find that on similar ITA.No 246-248 & 323/SRT/2019 A.Ys.09-10 to 11-12 Bank of India, Surat submission, the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while considering the similar objection of Revenue held that such correction

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

TDS is made on the 24 ITA No.431-432/SRT/2018 & CO 12/SRT/2021 (A.Ys 07-08 & 12-13) M/s Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. discount of Rs. 4.697 crore made to dealers. The assessing officer held that dealers are acting as agent of the assessee and like commission agent. The so-called dealers have rendered services in the course of buying

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

TDS is made on the 24 ITA No.431-432/SRT/2018 & CO 12/SRT/2021 (A.Ys 07-08 & 12-13) M/s Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. discount of Rs. 4.697 crore made to dealers. The assessing officer held that dealers are acting as agent of the assessee and like commission agent. The so-called dealers have rendered services in the course of buying

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 201 of the Act in respect of such tax (TDS) and for non deduction of TDS amount, interest u/s.201(1A) of the Act was also chargeable on the amount of TDS of Rs.3,95,000/-, which comes to Rs.3,31

M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE CIT-I, BARODA

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 263 of the Act. The ld.Authorised Representative(AR) in this respect relied upon the decision of Co-o0rdinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Arsh Industrials & Investments Pvt. Ltd., vs ITO [1988] 32 TTJ 402 (Ahmedabad), Ultramarine & Pigments Limited Vs. ACIT, Range- 7(3), Mumbai in ITA No.2844/Mum/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10, CIT, Patiala Vs. Roadmaster Industries

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 263 of the Act. The ld.Authorised Representative(AR) in this respect relied upon the decision of Co-o0rdinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Arsh Industrials & Investments Pvt. Ltd., vs ITO [1988] 32 TTJ 402 (Ahmedabad), Ultramarine & Pigments Limited Vs. ACIT, Range- 7(3), Mumbai in ITA No.2844/Mum/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10, CIT, Patiala Vs. Roadmaster Industries

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

TDS, Circle- Ranchi under section 131 (1)(d) of the Act to conduct enquiries in case of the lenders based at Ranchi. The said officers have sent the enquiry reports, which are framing part of assessment order. The findings of the AO as per chart is as under: S. Name of the Alleged Findings of enquiry N. Lenders Loan(includi

RAHUL TEXTILE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., ,SURAT vs. ITO-TDS, WARD-2, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rahul Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Tds, Ward-2, 4026-27, World Trade Centre, Surat. Udhna Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat – 395002. Pan : Aadcr5890F Appellant Respondednt

TDS was upheld by taking view that advancing of funds by company to its director falls in the ambit of section 2(22)(e) which is in the nature of deemed dividend. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submission of Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee and the Learned

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

section 5 of the Income Tax Act provides that the total income of a person for any previous year shall include all income from whatever sources derived, actually received or accrued or deemed to be received or accrued. The above said companies had deducted tax and the assessee had claimed the TDS amount in the return of income and shown

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHHLOK ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Shhlok Enterprise, Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat Block No.292, Plot No.135/B, Shhlok Arcede, Bamroli Road, Surat. Pan : Abufs8091E Appellant Respondednt

section 68 of ₹ 1.54 Crore. 3. The assessee also claimed and interest expenses on such unsecured loan of ₹ 13.79 lakhs. Since the loan was treated as bogus loan, consequent upon the interest expenses was also treated as non-genuine. 4. The assessing officer on further perusal of the survey report noted that assessee received booking amount of ₹ 4.81 Crore during

SHRI LALCHAND DHARIWAL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2623/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri Lalchand P. Dhariwal, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S. Adinath Textile , Ward- 1(2)(3) Surat O-21-23 Bombay Market Umarwada Surat Pan: Aatpd 0682 Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 68 by providing details to establish genuineness of transaction, identity and creditworthiness of depositors then the assessee is not expected to prove genuineness of cash deposited in bank account of those creditors because under the law the assessee can be asked to prove the source of credits in his books of accounts but not the source of source

ARJUNSINH HARISINH THAKOR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARDOLI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

31,42,500/- on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The plea of assessee about availability of cash in hand was rejected by assessing officer by taking a view that the assessee has shown repeated cash withdrawal even though more than sufficient cash balance was allegedly available with the assessee. The assessee was not carrying out any business

THE ITO, WARD-1,, NA vs. ARIVS.SHRI ANILKUMAR AMRUTLAL CHAHWALA, NAVSARI

In the result, this ground of appeal is rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2078/Ahd/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1003/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Amrutlal Chahwala, Ward-(1), Navsari. 102, Trimurti Complex, Vijalpore, Navsari. [Pan: Abnpc 6308 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

section 40(a)(ia). The Assessing Officer disallowed the payment to labour contractor exceeding Rs.50,000/- without remitting TDS. The assessing officer identified 187 labour contractors in Padmavati Gems 258 labour contractor in Parth Corporation, thereby disallowed Rs.1.68 crore in Padmavati Gems and Rs.3.60 crore in Parth Corporation. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee made detailed written submission

ITO, WARD-3(3)(3), SURAT vs. M/S. M D HOUSE BUILD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

31,63,790/- for construction of residential units / flats which shown as work-in-progress in the audited balance-sheet. The construction cost till the end of relevant year was for the purchased of land and its development expenses, labour charges, cutting expenses, material purchase expenses, labour with material expenses and other indirect expenses shown in the audited balance- sheet