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

72), (x) Relevant bank statement of Axis bank evidencing payments (vide Pb.73 to 77) and (xi) Ledger of service tax expense of AY 2018-19 (vide Pb.78 to 79). The ld Counsel submitted that ld PCIT has raised four small issues in his order under section 263 of the Act, the ITA No.121/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 D. V. Properties Pvt. Ltd. aggregate amount

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)

72,140/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer after making various enquiries made various additions/disallowance consisting of disallowance on account of delay in deposit in contributions of employ EPF and ESI, disallowance of interest under section 40A(ia)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and disallowance out of interest paid

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

SHRI ANIL OMPRAKASH MISHRA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Anil Om Prakash Mishra, I.T.O., A-281, Shubham Bunglows, Sachin, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Surat-394230. Surat. Pan No. Ajnpm 7661 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

72,000/-, out of which Rs. 36,000/- on account of telephone expenses and Rs. 36,000/- on account of conveyance expenses. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 44AB of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 271B vide order dated 27/06/2019. 3. Before levying

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 on the said payment, because of benefit of exception Clause provided in Sec-(1)(v)(b) of the Act. However, the ld.Assessing Officer had not considered manufacturing activities through wholly owned subsidiaries as a business carried on outside India. The company had raised debts in foreign currencies. Under scheme quoted by Reserve Bank of India known as external commercial

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 on the said payment, because of benefit of exception Clause provided in Sec-(1)(v)(b) of the Act. However, the ld.Assessing Officer had not considered manufacturing activities through wholly owned subsidiaries as a business carried on outside India. The company had raised debts in foreign currencies. Under scheme quoted by Reserve Bank of India known as external commercial

RAHUL COAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,SURAT vs. ITO TDS-2, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1220/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Rahul Coal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Addl. Cit (Tds), 429-432 Golden Point, Ring Road, Surat, Nr. Bsnl Office, Surat-395 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1044D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

72 taxmann.com 237 (Jaipur- Trib.) (iv) G.K.Traders vs. ITO (2022) 143 taxmann.com 425 (Rajkot-Trib.) and (v) Nisarahmed Abdulsattar Shaikh vs. ITO-TDS in ITA Nos. 2505/Ahd/2018 and ITA No.339/Ahd/2020 dated 30.06.2023 and requested to allow the appeal. ITA No.1220/SRT/2024/AY.2013-14 Rahul Coal India Pvt. Ltd. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue

CHIRAGBHAI S. GADHIYA,SURAT vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chiragbhai S. Gadhiya, I.T.O., 79, Mani Nagar Society, Nana Ward-3(2)(6), Vs. Varachha, Nr. Sarthana Jakat Naka, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Ajypg 7927 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

TDS form was furnished. On the basis of aforesaid submission, the assessee requested to delete the addition under Section 68 of the Act of Rs. 24,91,375/-. 4. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee held that the assessee claimed that he has received cash from various parties, however, no documentary evidence was furnished before

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)

Section 40a(ia) of the Act which clearly says that if the payee has included in his return of income, the income so received and paid the taxes thereon then no disallowance on account of interest should be made. Learned Counsel submits before us that interest was paid to NBFC Companies and these NBFC Companies have included the interest

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

TDS on foreign remittance made as well as the case law of Guj High Court in the case of Dahyabhai Veljibhai Patel in TA No.793 of 2013 would not apply in this case as the issue has not reached its finality ? 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground(s) of appeal either before

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.,-3, SURAT vs. SHRI PANNALAL MAHENDRA KOTHARI, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Pannalal Mahendra Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Kothari, 8A, Abhishek Vs Room No.507, 5Thfloor, Apartment, S.D. Road, Ayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat Surat-395001 Pan : Aizpk 3155 F Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

72,028 13.07.2015 15,99,450 15.07.2015 2,11,000 07.07.2015 12,50,000 21,07,2015 18,17,655 -- -- 07.07.2015 95,172 -- --- --- --- TDS 95,17,200 84,17,105 13,11,000 4. It was also explained that major amount of consideration was financed and rest of the payment was made from self-finance (own sources). The transaction recorded

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

SAIKRUPA CORPORATION,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(9), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Saikrupa Corporation, I.T.O., C-502, Prasang Residency, Opp Ward 1(3)(9), Vs. Green Avenue, L.P. Savani Road, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-395007. Pan No. Abkfs 6228 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

72,050/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. In the return of income, the assessee has shown business income. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has debited carting expenses of Rs. 5.00 lacs paid to Nation Timber Trader, Ahmedabad and carting goods on rent of Rs. 5,49,818/- from Bhaglaxmi Centring, Vadodara

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

72,006 was added under the head “income from other\nsources\". These interest incomes may be considered as income after sec 80T\ndeductions. I already have offered this as income. In the computation shown\nthese incomes are considered as taxable income. The TDS deducted on these\ninterest income are not considered in the demand calculation. These may be\nallowed. This

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

72,006 was added under the head “income from other\nsources\". These interest incomes may be considered as income after sec 80T\ndeductions. I already have offered this as income. In the computation shown\nthese incomes are considered as taxable income. The TDS deducted on these\ninterest income are not considered in the demand calculation. These may be\nallowed. This

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN

72,006 was added under the head “income from other\nsources". These interest incomes may be considered as income after sec 80T\ndeductions. I already have offered this as income. In the computation shown\nthese incomes are considered as taxable income. The TDS deducted on these\ninterest income are not considered in the demand calculation. These may be\nallowed. This

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO, DAMAN

72,006 was added under the head “income from other\nsources". These interest incomes may be considered as income after sec 80T\ndeductions. I already have offered this as income. In the computation shown\nthese incomes are considered as taxable income. The TDS deducted on these\ninterest income are not considered in the demand calculation. These may be\nallowed. This

RAJGREEN INFRALINK LLP,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(3), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.257 & 375/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rajgreen Infralink Llp Deputy Commissioner Of 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-1(3) Nr. Choksi Wadi, New Rander Road, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Rajgreen Infralink Llp Vs Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Room No. 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Nagar, Nr. Choksi Wadi, Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, New Rander Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395009 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

72,98,000/-. 3. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant