SUPREME AUTO,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1141/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Bilimora Road, National Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari - 396521. [Pan: Aamfs 3499 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 22.10.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 22.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

40A(2)(b) of the Act. With regard to unsecured loan, it was submitted that these are old loan coming from last year, hence, no addition can be made during the year under consideration under section 68 of the Act. With regard to booking 4 Supreme Auto vs. Pr. CIT- Valsad /I.T.A.No.1141/AHD/2016/A.Y. 2011-12 advances, the assessee has given complete

ACIT,CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. SHRI MOHMEDSADIK A SHAIKH, ANKALESHWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.682/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Mohmedsadik A. Shaikh, Bharuch. Prop. Of Earth Power, Behind Mona Complex, Rajpipla Chowkdi, Ankleshwar-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahzps5638N (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Assessee By : Ms Kinjal V. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-Vadodara-3/10033/2017-18, Dated 30.07.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

40A(2)(b) will not apply to cases, where the assessee’s books of account have been rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act and without appreciating that factual aspects of the case did not warrant invoking the ITA.682/SRT/2019/AY.2014-15 Mohmedsadik A. Shaikh provision of section 144 of the Act. The A.O. on the basis of information and material available

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT, SURAT vs. J.B. AND BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.522/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Vs. J. B. & Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Tower Fc 3011/3012, 3Rd Floor, Bharat Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat, Room Diamond Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, No.504, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400004 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccj1569J (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2023

section 14A r.w.Rule 8D of the IT Rules had disallowed the amount of Rs.5,01,943/-. The working of the above disallowance given by the Assessing Officer as under: II A Financial Expenses 1,68,53,718/- B Average value of investment, 8,05,65,885/- 2 ITA No.522/SRT/2023/AY.2016-17 J. B. & Brothers Pvt. Ltd. income from which does not form

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, SURAT vs. MRS. KIRAN CHOWDHURY, PROP. M/S. KIRAN TRADE LINK,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS has been deducted and these persons have filed return of income showing the income from the assessee. Just because, these persons could not attend before the AO as they are residing at Raipur and were unable to attend before the AO due to pregnancy of their daughter. The 25% of payments were treated as non-genuine. Considering the facts

MRS. KIRAN CHOWDHURY,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS has been deducted and these persons have filed return of income showing the income from the assessee. Just because, these persons could not attend before the AO as they are residing at Raipur and were unable to attend before the AO due to pregnancy of their daughter. The 25% of payments were treated as non-genuine. Considering the facts

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR and Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss account. Thereafter notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 10.08.2016 and duly served upon the assessee firm on 27/08/2016. Subsequently a notice u/s 142(1) cum- questionnaire was issued on 02.06.2017 and this was too duly served upon the assessee’s firm

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

b)referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tax, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed

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)

40A(ia)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and disallowance out of interest paid on TDS and disallowance under section 14A, while passing assessment order 15.01.2016. The assessment order was revised ld. Pr.CIT by exercising his jurisdiction under section 263 dated 20.03.2018. Before passing, the revision order, the ld. Pr. CIT, on perusal of assessment

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

2 and 3/Srt/2018 dated 28/09/2018, relevant part of the said decision is extracted below: “29. On careful consideration of above all rival submissions, first of all, we may point out some glaring and undisputed facts which are as follows: i) The AO initiated re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and also issued notice u/s.148

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

2 and 3/Srt/2018 dated 28/09/2018, relevant part of the said decision is extracted below: “29. On careful consideration of above all rival submissions, first of all, we may point out some glaring and undisputed facts which are as follows: i) The AO initiated re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and also issued notice u/s.148

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

B-2, Vraj Darshan, Shree Vapi Circle, Krishna Apartment, Survey Vapi No.311/2, Dadra Nagar Haveli, Dadra & Nagar Haveli - 396191 [PAN: ABUFS4421M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kaushik Kejriwal, CA Respondent by: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT: This appeal has been filed

AMIYA SACHINDRA DEY,,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, VAPI

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

2 of 5 3 Brief facts are that the assessee is a labour contractor and has given sub- contract to 8 no. of parties to whom payment amounting to Rs.71,39,011/- has been made without deducting TDS thereon. Therefore, the AO disallowed the same by invoking the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH vs. M/S. J.K. JEWELLERS, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.440/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Bharuch. Station Road, Near Rungta School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.443/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, Station Road, Near Rungta Bharuch. School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act. (iii) If the telescopic benefit is given to the assessee then, first, corresponding purchase for unaccounted sale of Rs.2,55,46,125/- ITA Nos.440 & 443//SRT/2018/AY.2014-15 M/s. J. K. Jewellers should have been accounted for. The ld Counsel for the assessee could not throw any light on this aspect. (iv) In view

M/S. J.K. JEWELLERS,BHARUCH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.440/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Bharuch. Station Road, Near Rungta School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.443/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. J. K. Jewellers, Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, Station Road, Near Rungta Bharuch. School, Bharuch. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj5951F (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act. (iii) If the telescopic benefit is given to the assessee then, first, corresponding purchase for unaccounted sale of Rs.2,55,46,125/- ITA Nos.440 & 443//SRT/2018/AY.2014-15 M/s. J. K. Jewellers should have been accounted for. The ld Counsel for the assessee could not throw any light on this aspect. (iv) In view