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

TDS deducted under Section 194H of Rs. 1,78,673/-, thus the Assessing Officer was aware about the business activities of assessee. No notice or summon under Section 131 or 136 of the were issued for calling information from Interactive Financial & Trading Services Pvt. Ltd. and Flight Raja Travels Pvt. Ltd. On the applicability of Section

ARVINDBHAI RAMNIKLAL RAVAL HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Arvindbhai Ramniklal Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ (Huf)308, Chhapania Street, 1(3)(6), Surat, Room No.303, 3Rd Vs. Adajan, Surat-395 009 Floor, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeha 1847 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

TDS of Rs.2,65,300/- on the above payment. As per the agreement, the seller has conveyed to the appellant the vacant and direct possession of the entire property together with all rights and has stated that the appellant has become the sole and absolute owner of the property. The appellant shall have ownership and rights over the property

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

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 7. In view of the above facts, the ld PCIT observed that in the computation of STCG, the amount of Rs.3,85,407/- debited on account of addition made during the year under consideration, without any documentary evidence, PF and ESI contribution of Rs.43,433/- received from employees but deposited after the due date

SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS 47,025/- ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on above additions / disallowances for concealment of income and issued notices u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act on 13.02.2017. 5. During the penalty proceedings, the assessing officer held that

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS 47,025/- ITA Nos.618 & 623/SRT/2018 A.Y. 2011-13 Prakash F Singh &Gurfan A Chaudhury The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on above additions / disallowances for concealment of income and issued notices u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act on 13.02.2017. 5. During the penalty proceedings, the assessing officer held that

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

THE ITO, WARD-1,, NA vs. ARIVS.SHRI ANILKUMAR AMRUTLAL CHAHWALA, NAVSARI

In the result, this ground of appeal is rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2078/Ahd/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1003/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Amrutlal Chahwala, Ward-(1), Navsari. 102, Trimurti Complex, Vijalpore, Navsari. [Pan: Abnpc 6308 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

section 143(3) on 31.12.2008 assessing total income of Rs. 18,25,11,340/-. The assessing officer during the assessment from the trading account of Padmavati Gems noted that the assessee has shown receipt of Rs. 1,78,47,208/- on account of labour job work. The assessee has shown payment of Rs. 1,76,51,180/- as labour charges

M/S. JAY KHODIYAR ENGINEERING,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1487/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Jay Khodiyar Engineering, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 52, New Shakti Vijay Society, Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat Varachha Road, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefj3305P (Assessee) (Respondent)

47 lacs 938.06 facs (Rs.) N.P(Rs.) 6.98 lacs 14.66 lacs 37.11 lacs N.P % 3.21% 3.65% 3.96% Assessment Year. 2010-11 M/s. Jay Khodiyar Engineering G.P 14.38 lacs 37.76 lacs 76.31 lacs G.P ratio 6.62% 9.40% 8.20%” 9. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue submitted that the total labour expenses debited in the Profit

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting penalty of Rs.4,21,36,403/-levied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. LEMON TECHNOMIST PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

TDS of payment made to non-resident for purchase of software because same would constitute 'royalty' under section 9 of the Act? Assessment Years.2014-15 Lemon Technomist Pvt. Ltd. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the assessing officer. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order

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

47,07,098/- under the regular provisions and took profit of Rs. 3,07,12,494/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The case of assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under e-assessment scheme with regard to ‘refund claim’ and ‘ICDS compliance and adjustment’. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) on 03/03/2021 made

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)

TDS. (3) Alternatively, and without prejudice to above ground, the assessee be granted the benefit of second proviso inserted to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. (4) The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.” Assessment Years.2010-11 D. Khushalbhai Jewellers 2. Now, we shall take ground no. 1 which relates to partly confirming the addition

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

47,344 Maher Cargo Carriers Pvt. Ltd. 7,65,474 0 Atul Ltd. 14,08,020 17,754 Sarna Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 2,66,524 2665 ITA No.125/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Jashmin Kantilal Patel Suvidha Industries 16,390 164 Sigma Elements Pvt. Ltd. 1,02,578 0 Total 2,19,67,791 1,61,448 4. However, the above said parties, mentioned

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PAMECHA, AJMER

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram