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

1) of the Act along with questionnaire on various dates. In response, the assessee filed various replies and details. The reply and explanation of assessee were accepted by the AO and no addition on any of the impugned issues was made. Subsequently, the PCIT called for the records and examined the same. He observed that assessee debited various expenses

DHANSUKHBHAI PARAGJIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1021/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dhansukhbhai Deputy Commissioner Of Paragjibhai Patel, Income-Tax, 143, Brahaman Faliya, Circle - 2(3) Surat Dindoli Udhna 394210 Pan: Avdpp7007 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1,26,80,000.. Therefore, the AO has considered the long-term capital gain accrued in A.Y. 2009-10. The filed original return of income on 31.03.2012. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee replied the original return of income filed may be treated as filed in response to notice under section

SHRI DINESHBHAI VITTALBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.970/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dineshbhai Vittalbhai Income Tax Officer, Patel, Ward- 2(3)(7), Surat 6/1261, Bhut Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat Pan: Aatwpp 3597J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1,26,80,000.. Therefore, the AO has considered the long-term capital gain accrued in A.Y. 2009-10. The filed original return of income on 31.03.2012. A notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee replied the original return of income filed may be treated as filed in response to notice under section

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred by deleting the addition of Rs.3,58,86,421/- treating as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting disallowance of Rs.4

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred by deleting the addition of Rs.3,58,86,421/- treating as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting disallowance of Rs.4

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

1)(va) of Rs. 3,11,536/-, disallowed Rs. 90,637/- being the payment of interest to the Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., disallowed Rs.1,27,628/- the interest paid on late payment of TDS under section 37

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

1,22,37,948/- though in fact, the Appellant has clearly shown that the same represents the amount of deferred grant transferred to Profit and Loss Account to meet depreciation on assets acquired out of grants received from Government of India in earlier years prior to the amendment of section 2(24) by inserting clause (xviii) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and duly

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

1,74,510 White reti 3 M/s M.D. House Build Kotadiya 3 Laljibhai Kotadiya 4,35,886 4,35,886 Carting 4 Madhubhai K 32,64,724 32,64,724 Material with Vaghasiya labour 5 Nilesh R Dobariya 26,37,360 26,37,360 Material with labour 6 Pravinkumar M 31,52,101 31,52,002 Material with Korat labour

STATE BANK OF INDIA,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.37 & 38/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtualcourt Hearing) State Bank Of India Income Tax Officer (Tds-3) Room No.607, Aaykar Regional Business Office-V, Navsari- Vs. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Tapi, 1St Floor, Shourya Apartment, 395001 Opp. Lunsikul Ground, Navsari- 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacs 8577 K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

TDS with respect to LTC/ LFC amount paid to its employees by the State Bank of India) in favour of assessee. 11.On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of assessing officer. 12.We note that issue under consideration is no longer res integra. The Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the assessee

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

1(4), Mumbai on 06.10.2013, wherein he has admitted as bogus entry provider. Sushil Jain, proprietor of Mayur Gems is an employee of Pravin Jain. The Assessing Officer further noted that assessee has also paid interest on such unsecured loan and other loans. The Assessing Officer on the basis of his observation took his view that the transactions of unsecured

D V PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) D. V. Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit - 1, 748-749, Golden Plaza Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms Chaitali Shah, Ca Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2023

TDS, which is not allowable as per the provision of section 37(1) of the Act. 7. In view of the above

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 36(1)(ii) would not apply, however, it is allowable u/s.37(1) of the Act. 33. In the present case also the AO has failed to establish that the commission paid to the recipient Directors was payable as profits or dividends of the assessee company. Per contra, from the facts and circumstances revealed from the orders of the authorities

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 36(1)(ii) would not apply, however, it is allowable u/s.37(1) of the Act. 33. In the present case also the AO has failed to establish that the commission paid to the recipient Directors was payable as profits or dividends of the assessee company. Per contra, from the facts and circumstances revealed from the orders of the authorities

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. JASHMIN KANTILAL PATEL, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.125/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Jashmin Kantilal Patel, Vapi Circle, Plot No.320/9, 40 Shed Area, Gidc, Vapi Vapi – 396191. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agcp0492M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 09/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

section 143(1) of the Act, to the tune of Rs.2,13,98,205/- (The said income / addition of Rs.2,13,98,205/- relates to total TDS of Rs.1,60,305/-). 5. On appeal by assessee, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition observing as follows: “Facts of the case and appellant's submission were perused. Taxability of income comes

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

section 194 which is not been deducted and the advances was treated as deemed dividend. The Assessing Officer/ITO, TDS accordingly treated the assessee in default and also worked out demands of Rs.2,50,222/- and interest thereon at the rate of 1% per month for 95 months, thereby worked out interest on Rs.2,37

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

TDS @ 1% under Section 194C ought to have deducted by assessee, however, the same was not deducted. After going through the list of 11 parties, the assessee furnished the details of all parties who have paid the tax on such receipt, however, the Assessing Officer not considered and passed the assessment order hurriedly without considering that all the parties have

SHREE ABHISHEK BIPINBHAI NAIK,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Abhishek Bipinbhai Naik I.T.O., (Prop. Of M/S Shivbhole Services), Ward 1(2)(1), Vs. House No. 1, Desai Faliyu, At Po Surat. Vaktana, Tal, Choryasi Via Sachin, Surat-394230. Pan No. Agppn 5994 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

37,920/- which consists of income from business of Rs. 1,78,673/- and income from other sources of Rs. 59,249/-. The assessee filed revised return on 24/02/2018 declaring same income. The return was again revised on 01/08/2018 declaring income of Rs. 2,91,130/- by showing income from other sources. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny