SHRI JAYESH KANTILAL MODI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 40A(3) of the Act. All the purchases are supported by valid and genuine bills. During the course of business, the assessee had purchased rough and polished diamonds from the local market by way of cash. The cash book was furnished. The confirmation of parties were also furnished. The contents in the show cause notice that transactions are bogus

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

40a(ia) of the Act, is rejected. The provisions of section 201(1) of the Act stipulates that where a person who is required to deduct TDS, does not deduct TDS or does not pay the TDS after deduction, then such person without prejudice to any another consequence, shall be deemed to be “assessee in default” in respect of such

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

ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR P. JAIN,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1164/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Bilimora Road, National Of Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari 396 521 Pan: Aamfs 3499 K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

40A(2)(b) of the Act. Hence, the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. On the issue of Rs. 5 Lakh loan given to Abdul Razak Memon, Supreme Auto vs. Pr. CIT- Valsad /I.T.A.No.1164/Ahd/2017/A.Y. 12-13 Page 4 of 19 the assessee A.R. indirectly admitted no justification of said loan. There defect

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 40a(ia) for non-deduction of TDS accepting the loan by the assessee. However, going to search in the case of Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt on 05.02.2016 based on his statement that Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt containing seven entities which are used to extend loans to different parties. Based on this information, the case of the assessee has been

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

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

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

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

MEGA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

TDS by the assessee on training expenses. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the matter to the file of AO by contravening the provisions of Section 251(1)(a). 4. It is therefore prayed that above additions/disallowances made by the assessing

M/S. D.KHUSHALBHAI JEWELLERS,,SURAT vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.822/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. D. Khushalbhai Jewellers, Vs. The Acit, Circle-3, 1, Khandwala Estate, Parle Point, Surat. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfd7547G (Assessee) (Respondent)

3 relates to disallowance of payment of interest of Rs.2,79,721/- for non-deduction of TDS. 12. At the outset itself, the Learned Counsel submits before us that the assessee may be granted the benefit of second proviso to Section 40a

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S J.K. Paper Ltd. Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mill, Vs. Surat. Fort Songadh, Surat. Pan : Aaact 6305 N Appellant Respondednt

40a(ia) of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of income by not deducting TDS on foreign remittance made as well as the case law of Guj High Court in the case of Dahyabhai Veljibhai Patel in TA No.793 of 2013 would not apply in this case as the issue

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

3, it is clear that in F.Y. 2009-10 the growth in turnover was 20.27% and growth in the additional remuneration was only 1.27% in comparison to the previous year. Further, in F.Y. 2010-11 pertaining to present A.Y.2011-12 the growth in the turnover 139.77% and growth in the commission / additional remuneration was 87.64% which shows that it is linked

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

3, it is clear that in F.Y. 2009-10 the growth in turnover was 20.27% and growth in the additional remuneration was only 1.27% in comparison to the previous year. Further, in F.Y. 2010-11 pertaining to present A.Y.2011-12 the growth in the turnover 139.77% and growth in the commission / additional remuneration was 87.64% which shows that it is linked

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

3 of 10 to appellant`s own sister concern is a ridiculous and unbelievable proposition. The ld. CIT (A) further observed that return filed by the Mrs. Khusboo Chowdhury also shows that she is receiving a rental income for her house property occupied by the M/s. Kaveri Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. to whom she claims also selling cloths

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

3 of 10 to appellant`s own sister concern is a ridiculous and unbelievable proposition. The ld. CIT (A) further observed that return filed by the Mrs. Khusboo Chowdhury also shows that she is receiving a rental income for her house property occupied by the M/s. Kaveri Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. to whom she claims also selling cloths

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

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

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

TDS from the payments made to the sub-contractors with the direction to consider the amendment made by the Finance Act 2012 that if the payee paid tax on the amount paid by the assessee to him by showing the receipt as his income, the non-disallowance of expenditure can be made in the hands of the assessee. However, during