KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 234E”. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 234E”. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 234E”. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source (TDS) on making certain payments as per Chapter XVII of Income Tax Act. The assessee deducted such tax at source and filed statement of TDS. However, there was ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 271(1) (c ) of the Act of Rs. 65,060/- should be deleted. ITA.146/SRT/2023/AY.2012-13 Raj Kishore Prasad 14. I note that for AY.2012-13 to 2014-15 in ITA No.1660 to 1666/Ahd/2017 for AYs.2012-13 to 2014-15, in case of State Bank of India vs ITO (TDS

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.2,65,000/- u/s 194IA has been paid which is evident from the bank statement and sale agreement submitted during assessment proceedings. The possession was also with the assessee and he enjoy the rights of ownership. The CIT(A) observed that condition of Section

SURAT DISTRICT CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Surat District Co-Op. Dy. Commissioner Of Milk Producer’S Union Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Vs Sumul Dairy Road, Station Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Road, Surat Gate, Surat Pan : Aaaas 3450 M Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

section 194-I of the Act. To support his submission, the assessee relied on the decision of Koley Construction vs. ITO (2017) 86 taxmann.com 73 (Kol) and RBL Bank Ltd. vs. ITSO (TDS) (2016) 65

JAVAHARLAL S DHARIWAL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.203/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Javaharlal S Dhariwal Income Tax Officer, 886 Old Gidc, Nr. Bank Of Ward-1(2)(2), Surat-395001 Vs Baroda, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Pan No: Aaypd 4207 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mahul Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 28.04.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [For Short To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 30.01.2020 For Assessment Year 2013- 14, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)(2), Surat/Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making A Disallowance Of Rs.3,45,378/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. Javaharlal S Dhariwal 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer By Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.2,46,915/- Out Of Total Disallowance Of Rs.4,93,830/- On Account Of Machinery Salary Expenses. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.3,95,466/- Being Interest Expenses Claimed U/S 57 Of The Act.

TDS as their income was less than basic exempt limit. On the machine salary expense, the assessee submitted that machine salary paid by assessee regarding machineries, which were running all the times and machine salary pertains to ten machines. The assessee submitted that during assessment proceedings, no such show cause notice issued by Assessing Officer regarding disallowances of machines salary

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

SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,,MAHUVA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER.TDS-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 117/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2008-09 M/S. Shree Mahuva Pradesh Vs. Income-Tax Officer Tds-4 Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandali Surat Ltd. At & Po Sugar Factory Bamania 305202 Pan: Aaaas 4731M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 206C of the Act which categorically provides three conditions must be satisfied for making liable the seller for collection of tax at source which are 1. The material should be waste 2. The material sold should be generated from manufacture or mechanical working material 3 the material sold is not re usable as such because of breakage, cutting

ANIRUDH KESHAV DUBEY,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Anirudh Keshav Dubey, I.T.O., Flat No. 602, Leela Tower, Near Daman Vs. Vatsav Park, Rofel College, Namdha Road, Vapi- 396191 (Gujarat) Pan No. Aejpd 7924 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on the basis of information that the assessee has not filed return of income and was having contractual receipt of Rs. 9,65,728/- from M/s Creative Garments Pvt. Ltd. as reflected in Form 26AS on which TDS

SARLABEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

65,91,837/-made by assessing officer under section 50C of Income tax Act. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming action of assessing officer in making reference to the valuation officer under section 55A of the act for valuing impugned property edge on 1st April

KIRTIKUMAR NAGINDAS SHAH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.535/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Kiritkumar Nagindas Shah, Vs. The Ito, A-1103, Regent Residency, Near Ward – 2(3)(6), Saurabh Society, Pal, Surat Surat – 395009, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anjps9031P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 14 of the I.T. Act attracts in your case. Therefore, you are asked to furnish explanation as to why expenditure incurred of Rs.7,56,965/- for earning exempt income should not be disallowed u/s 14A of the I.T. Act as worked out of Rs.7,56,965/- as per rule 8D of the income tax. Further, it is noticed that

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

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

M/S NILKANTH STONE INDUSTRIES, VALSAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.386/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Shop No.A-1/2/3, Nilkanth Of Income Tax, Valsad. Residency, B/H Old Jakarta Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad. [Pan: Aajfn 5653 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Surji Chheda - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 27.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) Dated 27.03.2018, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Vide His Application Dated 16.08.2018 Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Has Erred In Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Which Was Without Jurisdiction & The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On All Issues Discussed In Revision Order & Has Erred In Setting It Aside For Fresh

TDS on payments of interest to Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. 4. Subsequently, the assessment was revised by Ld. PCIT by exercising his power under section 263 vide his order dated 27.03.2018. The Ld. PCIT besides other issues identified issues related to the advance of Rs.50 lakhs given to Amrutbhai I. Patel for purchase of property, by taking view that

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. M/S. D P VEKARIYA, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 172/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Physical Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-3(3), Vs. M/S. D. P. Vekariya, Surat Skylark Shopping, B/H Kapodara Police Station, Varachha Road, Surat, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfd 8442 Q (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr 02/06/2022 Date Of Hearing 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

65,772 51,76,33,528 17,32,244 1,17,85,599 contract receipts Interest Income 19,47,921 14,08,934 5,38,987 2,03,518 Total 52,13,13,693 51,90,42,462 22,71,231 1,19,87,117 The assessee claimed and allowed TDS credit of Rs.1,19,87,117/-, however the corresponding

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)

65,140/- is reduced to Rs.16,89,018/-. Hence, Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 12. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS

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