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

ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT vs. SHRI ARVINDBHAI RATANBHAI MOKANI, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Arvindbhai Ratanbhai Mokani, Ward-3(3)(1), D-260-261, Vittal Nagar Society, Vs. Surat. Varachha Road, Hira Baug, Surat-395006. Pan No. Ahfpm 2302 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee further submitted that he is engaged in the business of yarn trading and was having bank account in HDFC bank, Varachha Road, Surat. The assessee made cash deposit on various dates in his bank account. The assessee furnished such details as per para 3.1 as recorded on page No. 5 of order

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 because huge expenses of more than Rs.31 crore has been claimed by the assessee on various expenses, which are prima facie covered under provisions of section 194C, 194J and 192 of the Act. It is not necessary that addition is a must in case of scrutiny assessment; however, it is certainly the duty of the AO to call

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 263 of the Act. With reply, the assessee furnished reconciliation of Form No. 26AS and sales in tabular form. Even during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee reconciled the same with reference to the credit in the bank accounts and the ld. Pr.CIT wanted reconciliation with reference to sales shown by the assessee. The assessee explained in respect

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

45,350/-) on account of non-deduction of 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

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), SURAT vs. M/S. HI-CHOICE PROCESSORS P. LTD, SURAT

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.98/Srt/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Income Tax Officer, M/S. Hi-Choice Processors Pvt. Ward-1(1)(3), Room No.113, Vs. Ltd., 264, Gidc, Sachin, Surat- Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 394230. 395002 (""थ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach7062E िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 31/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2023

TDS is deducted. There is no finding of cash deposit in bank account of the lenders. The Confirmation of all lenders were filed during assessment proceedings and no further enquiry were deemed necessary by the Assessing Officer. Out of the 19 parties, 13 parties are directors or their relatives or sister concern from whom the assessee had also taken loan

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

KSHITIJ MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

section of the Income Tax Act, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence addition should be deleted. Another argument of the ld Counsel was that similar commission was allowed in the past in the scrutiny assessment. The assessee had paid the commission @ 45% to the parties including the service tax amount. It is contended that in the assessment

MICRO INKS PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS MICRO INKS LTD.),VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ( INTL. TAXN.), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

TDS made Australia & New Singapore Rs.1,93,89,614 10% DTAA Rs.19,38,960 Zealand Banking Group DBS Bank Ltd. Singapore Rs.66,53,684 10% DTAA Rs.6,65,370 Standard UK Rs.84,50,573 10% DTAA Rs.8,45,060 Chartered Bank The HSBC Ltd. Hong Kong Rs.31,73,181 40% No DTAA Rs.47,18,660 Rs.3,76,67,052 Rs.47

THE ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, SURAT vs. MICRO INKS LIMITED,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

TDS made Australia & New Singapore Rs.1,93,89,614 10% DTAA Rs.19,38,960 Zealand Banking Group DBS Bank Ltd. Singapore Rs.66,53,684 10% DTAA Rs.6,65,370 Standard UK Rs.84,50,573 10% DTAA Rs.8,45,060 Chartered Bank The HSBC Ltd. Hong Kong Rs.31,73,181 40% No DTAA Rs.47,18,660 Rs.3,76,67,052 Rs.47

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

45% share of\nprofit in the project.\n3. Without prejudice and in addition to ground No.1 & 2, on the facts and in\nthe circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in estimating the\nprofit of the project on the land in question as against addition of\nRs.28,80,49,899/- made

NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT

45% share of\nprofit in the project.\n3. Without prejudice and in addition to ground No.1 & 2, on the facts and in\nthe circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in estimating the\nprofit of the project on the land in question as against addition of\nRs.28,80,49,899/- made

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

45% share of\nprofit in the project.\n3. Without prejudice and in addition to ground No.1 & 2, on the facts and in\nthe circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in estimating the\nprofit of the project on the land in question as against addition of\nRs.28,80,49,899/- made

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

45,50,780/- in his order dated 26.03.2018. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions on each of the additions/disallowances, on which the penalty was levied by the Assessing officer. On the disallowance

AKSHAR GEMS,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) Akshar Gems, Assistant Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Shreeji Diamond Apartment, Vs. Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Nandu Doshi Ni Wadi, Vastadevdi Road, Aaykar Bhavan Nr.Majura Katargam, Surat – 395004 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarfa3697A Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

section 271-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 28.06.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as law on the subject, the Learned Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat erred

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

TDS had also been duly deducted by assessee and paid also. Sir when AO has sent notices under section 133 (6), following were results of notices: • Served • Unserved due to Left • Unserved due to incomplete address • Unserved due to Not Known For rejecting books of accounts of assessee, AO should be satisfied about either there is deficiencies in books

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S MBC INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LIMITED, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Mbc Infra Space Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Vs Vapi Circle, Vapi. 202, Second Floor, Centre Point, N.H. No. 8, Mahavir Nagar, Vapi. Pan: Aahcm8684N Respondent/ Assessee Appellant/ Revenue

45,077/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceeding Assessing Officer while going through Form 26AS, obtained from TDS application, noted that assessee received contractual payment from two parties namely Met Trade India Ltd. and Jindal Buildsys Ltd. on which TDS by said two parties. The Assessing Officer made the following tabulated details of payment received

MADHVI AJITKUMAR RANKA ,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Madhvi Ajitkumar Ranka, Vs. Acit, 88, Sunder Nagar, Jamalpore, Navsari Circle, Navsari – 396445 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahfpr5791K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

TDS on such interest payment. Accordingly, interest payment to Ajit R. Ranka (HUF) of Rs.2,58,750/- and interest given to Kotak Securities of Rs.51,913/- were disallowed as per provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, an assessment order was passed u/s.143

S M CONSTRUCTION,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2010-11

section addition was made. (4) That, the Assessing officer failed to appreciate the facts of the case in the right perspective and order is issued without considering the reply of appellant, without issuing speaking order. Order issued was against the natural justice and need to be deleted. (5) That, without prejudice to above, an addition of Rs.275,378 being