SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ROSHAN,,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, VAPI

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3153/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2007-08 Shri Vijay Kumar Roshan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-First Floor, Shreeji Ward, Silvasa Apartment Kilavani, Naka Silvasa Pan: Aempr 1339 H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 40(a)(ia) since the tax audit limit was crossed in the preceding assessment year 2006-07. Hence, the assessee was not aware of TDS compliance. Even if TDS was deducted at 1% which amounts to Rs. 61

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

TDS. The scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, 1961 was completed on 15.02.2021. 3. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,( in brief ‘Ld PCIT’) has exercised his jurisdiction, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On perusal of the computation of income data available on ITBA portal

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 144/ 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since these two appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to same assessee and identical and common issues are involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 713/SRT/2018 & 534/SRT/2019/AY.2013-14

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 144/ 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Since these two appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to same assessee and identical and common issues are involved, therefore, these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 713/SRT/2018 & 534/SRT/2019/AY.2013-14

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

I.T.O.WARD -2(1)(4), SURAT vs. VENUS UPCOUNTRY TRADING PVT. 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. 388/Srt/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Venus Upcountry Trading Pvt. Ltd., Surat. 6-1181, Dalia Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccv7694N

61,63,325/- (Rs.1,73,98,930 - Rs.12,29,604). The ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings

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)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 04.12.2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2019. Grounds

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper was not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and despite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating details/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp imaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper was not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and despite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating details/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp imaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper was not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and despite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating details/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp imaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

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

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’).

61,760/- which was assessed at Rs.34,36,760/- vide order dated 30 September 2013 under section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the ACIT-Circle- Navsari has sent a proposal for revision of said assessment under section 263 of the Act. On examination of proposal and records, the Pr. CIT noticed that the claim of brokerage/ commission at Rs.49

GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS RS.1,82,119/- POWER TILLER REBATE RS.14,000/- FBT EXPENSES RS.6,610/- 12,19,729 1,07,61,916 2) AGRICULTURAL ITEMS EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.5,35,43,908/- TILLER SALE SHOWN BY THE LEARNED AO LESS: CLOSING STOCK RS.65,28,858/- WRONGLY CONSIDERED IN TURNOVER EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.4,70,15,050/- 15.33 TILLER SALE AS PER BOOKS

GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS RS.1,82,119/- POWER TILLER REBATE RS.14,000/- FBT EXPENSES RS.6,610/- 12,19,729 1,07,61,916 2) AGRICULTURAL ITEMS EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.5,35,43,908/- TILLER SALE SHOWN BY THE LEARNED AO LESS: CLOSING STOCK RS.65,28,858/- WRONGLY CONSIDERED IN TURNOVER EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.4,70,15,050/- 15.33 TILLER SALE AS PER BOOKS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NA vs. ARIVS.GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS RS.1,82,119/- POWER TILLER REBATE RS.14,000/- FBT EXPENSES RS.6,610/- 12,19,729 1,07,61,916 2) AGRICULTURAL ITEMS EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.5,35,43,908/- TILLER SALE SHOWN BY THE LEARNED AO LESS: CLOSING STOCK RS.65,28,858/- WRONGLY CONSIDERED IN TURNOVER EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.4,70,15,050/- 15.33 TILLER SALE AS PER BOOKS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NA vs. ARIVS.GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

TDS RS.1,82,119/- POWER TILLER REBATE RS.14,000/- FBT EXPENSES RS.6,610/- 12,19,729 1,07,61,916 2) AGRICULTURAL ITEMS EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.5,35,43,908/- TILLER SALE SHOWN BY THE LEARNED AO LESS: CLOSING STOCK RS.65,28,858/- WRONGLY CONSIDERED IN TURNOVER EXEMPT ACTIVITY – POWER RS.4,70,15,050/- 15.33 TILLER SALE AS PER BOOKS

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)

61,639/-. In case of J & P Foil Ltd., the amount of Rs.29,45,675/- by way of TDS and he claimed the refund as the income in its hands resulted into loss after adjusting commission income. It is to be noted that in both the cases, the income was assessed as the regular income and the commission paid