SHRI AYUSH MURALILAL AGARWAL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2622/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Ayush Murarilal Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Brijvilla Bunglow, Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(3)(1) Surat B/H Gokul Row House, Parley Point Surat 395 007 [Pan: Acypa 9649 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala - Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri B. P. K. Panda, Sr. D.R.

TDS provisions as per Explain –L to section 194C are applicable only if total turnover in immediately preceding financial year is exceeded Rs. 40 lac. The perusal of Profit & Loss Account and balance sheet for the assessment year 2008-09 filed by the assessee appearing at Paper Book Page No. 5 to 9 shows that total turnover during assessment year

GIRISHCHNDRA K. BHATT,SURAT vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR.3(1) NEW CIR.1(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 143(1) of the Act dated 15/06/2018 was issued AO/CPC, and created demand for the want of TDS return by employed. We find that the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 28.06.2018. The appeal of the assessee was transferred to NFAC in term of notification of CBDT dated Girishchandra K Bhatt Vs Circle

GIRISHCHANDRA KESHAV BHATT,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 143(1) of the Act dated 15/06/2018 was issued AO/CPC, and created demand for the want of TDS return by employed. We find that the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 28.06.2018. The appeal of the assessee was transferred to NFAC in term of notification of CBDT dated Girishchandra K Bhatt Vs Circle

SHRI MAHENDRA S. GAJJAR,NARMADA vs. DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

34 above, under the head of carriage inward expenses, outward freight expenses and transportation charges under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are concerned it is discernable from the finding of the ld.CIT(A) order from para 17.22 above that provisions of sub-clause (k) of section 194C(1) as amended w.e.f. 01.06.2007 is very much applicable

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

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

SHRI LABHUBHAI RAVJIBHAI JASANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(7) , SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Labhubhai Ravjibhai Jasani, I.T.O., 17-18, Astvinayak Row House, Ward-1(3)(7), Vs. Nr. Parshuram Garden, Adajan, Surat. Surat-395009. Pan No. Abnpj 1872 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

34,657/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The Assessing Officer made disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS Valsad on 13th Jan, 2015 treating the assessee in default for non- deduction of tax from the payment made for LTC/LFC on visiting abroad. During the course of penalty proceedings the joint CIT has stated that assessee has failed to furnish any satisfactory reason/explanation for not deducting tax, therefore, he has levied penalty of Rs.1,70,220/- u/s. 271C

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. In the result, the ground No. 3 is allowed. 14. Ground No.4 relates to disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that during the financial year relevant to the assessment period under consideration, the assessee has not shown any exempt income, therefore there should not be any disallowance under section

N R CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.526/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) N. R. Corporation, Vs. The Pcit - 1, B-202, Capital Status, Opp – Hariom Surat Nagar, Near Atman Park, L. P. Savani Road, Adajan, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamfn9368A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

section-wise detailed report from Form 26Q from Q1 (April – June) to Q4 (January – March) where dates of payment, challan numbers and dates are given. It is seen therefore that al details were filed before the ld. PCIT and assessee has shown that TDS was deducted and deposited on time. Hence, the ld. PCIT should have accepted the explanation

SHILPRAJ DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE JCIT, T.D.S. RANGE,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3160/Ahd/2014 & 2054/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 1) The Ito/Tds-2, 12, Suryakiran Apt., Ghod-Dod Surat. Road, Surat – 395007. Jcit/T.D.S. [Pan: Aadcs 3045 H] Range/Surat. अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 03.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 & 3, Surat For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. In Ita No.316/Ahd/2014, The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Order Under Section 201(1) R.W.S 201(1A) Passed By Ito- Tds. & In Ita No.2054/Ahd/2016, The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271C Of The Act. As Both The Appeals Are Arising Of The Order Passed By Ito-Tds Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) & Are Inter- Connected With Each Other, Therefore, With The Consent Of The Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito/Tds-2/Srt /

TDS under section 201(1)/201(1A) and are inter- connected with each other, therefore, with the consent of the Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO/TDS-2/SRT / ITA No’s.3160/AHD/2014 & 2054/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2007-08 parties, both the appeals were heard together and decided by consolidated order. 2. In ITA No.3160/AHD/2014 the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

SHILPRAJ DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS- 2,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3160/Ahd/2014 & 2054/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 1) The Ito/Tds-2, 12, Suryakiran Apt., Ghod-Dod Surat. Road, Surat – 395007. Jcit/T.D.S. [Pan: Aadcs 3045 H] Range/Surat. अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 03.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 & 3, Surat For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. In Ita No.316/Ahd/2014, The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Order Under Section 201(1) R.W.S 201(1A) Passed By Ito- Tds. & In Ita No.2054/Ahd/2016, The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271C Of The Act. As Both The Appeals Are Arising Of The Order Passed By Ito-Tds Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) & Are Inter- Connected With Each Other, Therefore, With The Consent Of The Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito/Tds-2/Srt /

TDS under section 201(1)/201(1A) and are inter- connected with each other, therefore, with the consent of the Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO/TDS-2/SRT / ITA No’s.3160/AHD/2014 & 2054/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2007-08 parties, both the appeals were heard together and decided by consolidated order. 2. In ITA No.3160/AHD/2014 the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT vs. AKANSHA SHIP BREAKING PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.112/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Akansha Ship Breaking Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Dhamanwal Complex, Opp. Surat. Rajkumar Theater, Udhna, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca2307F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Vijayvargia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Surat-1/10577/2016-17 Dated 14.02.2020, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”], Dated 28.03.2016. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.39,52,119/- Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act On Account Of Non-Deduction Of Tds, According To The Provisions Of Section 194H Of The Act, On Bank Guarantee Commission Charged By The Bank On Behalf Of Assessee For The Line Of Credit Facility Extended By It, Holding That The Payment Made To The Bank In The Nature Of Commission For Extending The Line Of Credit Facility Is Not In The Nature Of Commission & Therefore The Provisions Of Section 194H Are Not Applicable To Such Payments, Without Appreciating That In The Assessee'S Case The Bank Charge Has The Character Of Commission?

section 194H. The ITAT Mumbai Bench, went to hold that no TDS was deductible on such, bank guarantee commission. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) also has relied on this order of ITAT Mumbai Bench, while allotting relief to the assessee and, further, during the course of proceedings before us, the department, could not point out any contrary

KIRTIKUMAR NAGINDAS SHAH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.535/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Kiritkumar Nagindas Shah, Vs. The Ito, A-1103, Regent Residency, Near Ward – 2(3)(6), Saurabh Society, Pal, Surat Surat – 395009, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anjps9031P (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS. Therefore, it was presumed by the assessing officer that the assessee has not deducted tax or deducted tax but not deposited tax into Central Government Account. Hence, the assessing officer observed that the claim of interest expenses of Rs.17,30,151/- was not allowable as deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the assessing officer made

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 2(22)(e) of the Act treats certain loans and advances given by a company to a concern in which a substantial shareholder has interest as deemed dividend, provided the payment is not in the ordinary course of business. The key elements required for applicability are: (i) that the payer company must be a closely held company; (ii) that

M/S. K.N. DIAMOND,,BILIMORA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1788/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S K.N.Diamond, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Soniwad, Bilimora, Of Income Tax, Navsari Navsari – 396 321. Circle, Navsari. [Pan: Aadfk 3167 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Parimalsinh Parmar – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

TDS provisions have been compiled with in accordance with the Act. In case Assessing Officer had any doubt, he could have very well cross verified such aspects by calling for details from the concerned parties u/s.133(6) of the Act. However, Assessing Officer chose not to do anything of such sort. The books of accounts are duly audited under section

SARLABEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

34,500/- under section 50C. The ld AR of the assessee submits that during the year under consideration the assessee has sold immovable properties/agricultural land situated at R.S. No.316 Block No.313 Khata No.76 ad measuring 14270 square meter in Moje Abrama, Taluka Kamraj, Surat along with her husband/co-owners on 17.10.2013. The assessee was having ½ share in the property. The assessee

ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT vs. M/S. SATYAM ENTERPRISE, SURAT

In the result, this part of issue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., M/S Satyam Enterprise, Ward- 3(3)(4), 182-Thakordwar Society, Nr. Vs. Surat. Spinning Mill, Varachha Road, Surat. Pan No. Abvfs 5076 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2014 which has been held as retrospective. To support such submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Rajkot Tribunal in Punabhai G. Pardava Vs ITO ITA No. 219/Rjt/2018 dated 08/06/2022. With regard to sub-contractor No. 6, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that

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

section 143(3) has been conducted on 11.12.2014 wherein vide inquiry dated 20.10.2014 (Page 8 of the paper book), the then Assessing Officer duly inquired about the loan received by Asst. Year: 2012-13 - 2– the assessee. The assessee had taken bogus accommodation entries for the following persons, which are as under: Sr. No. Name Amount 1 Anjana S. Trivedi