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

56 persons, out of which 54 are based at Ranchi and remaining two are group concerns of the assessee. The AO had issued DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat Vs. Kejriwal Industries Ltd.,/ITA No.1509/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 Page 4 of 49 commissions to DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi and ACIT-TDS, Circle- Ranchi under section

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 on Labour Contract Expenses, by observing that the said person has expired, without considering the fact that the assesse had not adhered to all the conditions of first proviso of Section 201 of the Income Tax Act,1961? 4. Whether, on the facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance to Rs. 1

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1,75,20,834 33. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order allowed deduction under section 80IA in respect of Land Fill I, Land Fill II and Incinerator project by treating the said undertakings as a composite undertaking. The ld CIT(A), held that the Incinerator is a new infrastructure facility and hence eligible for deduction under section

THE ACIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1,75,20,834 33. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order allowed deduction under section 80IA in respect of Land Fill I, Land Fill II and Incinerator project by treating the said undertakings as a composite undertaking. The ld CIT(A), held that the Incinerator is a new infrastructure facility and hence eligible for deduction under section

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

1) of the Act, the Commissioner of Income tax must be satisfied that the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer was (a) erroneous; and (b) prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the ld. CIT can assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act only if the order

ACIT, CC - 2., SURAT vs. M/S. MANGALMURTY DEVELOPERS, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.217/Srt/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. M/S. Mangalmurti Developers, Surat. 17/18, Astvinayak Raw House, Near Parshuram Garden, Adajan, Surat-395001. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aavfm9510C

1) of the I.T. Act. The case was selected under CASS under compulsory manual selection. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act dated 08.09.2017 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. 4. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued by assessing officer on 11/12/2018, fixing date of hearing on 14/12/2018. The contents of the show cause

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

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

TDS made on such interest and the amount received and repaid during the year. Such details are recorded by ld CITA) at page No. 18 & 19 of his order. The assessee also stated that the assessing officer considered only peak of all transaction and made addition of Rs. 4.15 Crore in AY 2010-11 and Rs. 2.14 Crore

N R CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.526/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) N. R. Corporation, Vs. The Pcit - 1, B-202, Capital Status, Opp – Hariom Surat Nagar, Near Atman Park, L. P. Savani Road, Adajan, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamfn9368A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Since assessee failed to deduct tax, the AO should have disallowed 30% of the total expenses of ITA No.526/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 N. R. Corporation Rs.1,56,80,153/- amounting to Rs.48,04,045/-. Failure to disallow such amount has resulted in consequential short levy of tax of Rs.14,41,210/- along with applicable interest

ARJUNSINH HARISINH THAKOR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARDOLI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

56 (All) (5) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh Vs CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat) (6) CIT Vs Kulvant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del) (7) S.R. Venkata Ratnam Vs CIT (1980) 48 CCH 0619 (Kar) (8) Vinatha Madhusudan Reddy Vs ACIT (2018) 54 CCH 0151 (Mum Trib) (9) R.S. Diamonds India (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com

M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE CIT-I, BARODA

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 263 of the Act. The ld.Authorised Representative(AR) in this respect relied upon the decision of Co-o0rdinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Arsh Industrials & Investments Pvt. Ltd., vs ITO [1988] 32 TTJ 402 (Ahmedabad), Ultramarine & Pigments Limited Vs. ACIT, Range- 7(3), Mumbai in ITA No.2844/Mum/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10, CIT, Patiala Vs. Roadmaster Industries

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 263 of the Act. The ld.Authorised Representative(AR) in this respect relied upon the decision of Co-o0rdinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Arsh Industrials & Investments Pvt. Ltd., vs ITO [1988] 32 TTJ 402 (Ahmedabad), Ultramarine & Pigments Limited Vs. ACIT, Range- 7(3), Mumbai in ITA No.2844/Mum/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10, CIT, Patiala Vs. Roadmaster Industries

PARVATIBEN BHAGUBHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7, VAPI, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Parvatiben Bhagubhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Dungri, Ponia Falia Udwada, Ward -7, Valsad – 396185. Vapi Pan : Afipp2146M Appellant Respondednt

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case as well as the law on subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing

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

56,700/- made u/s 69B of\nthe I.T. Act without deciding the case where in substantive addition has been\nmade and despite the facts that addition is based on incriminating\ndetails/document recovered during the search proceedings.\n3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has\nerred in deleting the addition

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

56,700/- made u/s 69B of\nthe I.T. Act without deciding the case where in substantive addition has been\nmade and despite the facts that addition is based on incriminating\ndetails/document recovered during the search proceedings.\n3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has\nerred in deleting the addition

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

56,700/- made u/s 69B of\nthe I.T. Act without deciding the case where in substantive addition has been\nmade and despite the facts that addition is based on incriminating\ndetails/document recovered during the search proceedings.\n3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has\nerred in deleting the addition

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT vs. NYA INTERNATIONAL,, SURAT

In the result, ground nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.713/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2014-15) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 15. Brief facts qua the issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that assessee has introduced fresh unsecured loans of Rs.7,30,70,996/- during the year. Therefore, assessing officer issued several notices u/s 142(1) of the Act on 14.08.2015, 19.10.2015, 27.10.2015 and 18.12.2015, wherein the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT vs. M/S NYA INTERNATIONAL,, SURAT

In the result, ground nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.713/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2014-15) The Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Nya International, Surat. Unit No. 360, Plot No. 239, Sez, Gidc, Sachin, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Assessee By Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 15. Brief facts qua the issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that assessee has introduced fresh unsecured loans of Rs.7,30,70,996/- during the year. Therefore, assessing officer issued several notices u/s 142(1) of the Act on 14.08.2015, 19.10.2015, 27.10.2015 and 18.12.2015, wherein the assessee

SHRI SHARAD Y. JAIN,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

56,48,005/- Total 25,29,70,993/- 6. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer (AO) formed opinion that income of the assessee has escaped from assessment and that he was satisfied that it is a fit case for reopening under section 147 of ITA 1383/Ahd/2017 Anil G Kumawat Vs ITO & 18 Ors Appeals. the Act. Notice