GIRISHCHANDRA KESHAV BHATT,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

80,080/- on account of TDS liability. The intimation under section 143(1) was sent to the assessee on 15/06/2018

GIRISHCHNDRA K. BHATT,SURAT vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR.3(1) NEW CIR.1(3), SURAT

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

80,080/- on account of TDS liability. The intimation under section 143(1) was sent to the assessee on 15/06/2018

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)

TDS was made for which the sales was accounted in succeeding years in respect of the advances. For the fourth party i.e. Gaurang Yogeshbhai Shah, it was submitted that no advances were received and therefore the sales were shown in the list of sales exceeding Rs. 10 lacs. The fourth party i.e Gaurang Yogeshbhai Shah, who is the proprietor

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

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS deducted on interest payment and the proof of repayment. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction of loan as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and disallowed the interest expenses of Rs. 80

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS deducted on interest payment and the proof of repayment. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction of loan as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and disallowed the interest expenses of Rs. 80

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS deducted on interest payment and the proof of repayment. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction of loan as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and disallowed the interest expenses of Rs. 80

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

TDS deducted on interest payment and the proof of repayment. The Assessing Officer treated the transaction of loan as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 and disallowed the interest expenses of Rs. 80

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

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.

80,170/-; interest payment to Nareshbhai Kumbhani, Jograj Sampatraj & Co. and Jograj S. Rana (HUF) of Rs.68,958/-, Rs.48,125/- respectively. On payment of such expenses, the assessee has not deducted Taxes at Sources (TDS) as required under section

TRIVIDH CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.86/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Trividh Corporation, Vs. The Pcit, Surat. Tp No.25, Fp No.103, Aashtha Medicare & Residency, Abrama Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahft0894N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. T. Bidari, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Grievances Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Principal Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Invoke Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act & Finally ‘Set-Aside’ Ao’S Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Also Direct The Ao To Frame The Assessment ‘Denovo’.” 2. The Relevant Material Facts, As Culled Out From The Material On Record, Are As Follows. The Assessee Before Us Is A Firm. It Has Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2015-16 On 13.10.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs. 4,42,80,220/-. The Assessee`S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Project Development Activities. The Id Assessing Assessment Years.2015-16 Trividh Corporation Officer (Herein After Referred To ‘Ao’) Finalized The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, On 11.12.2017, Accepting The Returned Income Of The Assessee.

TDS interest 1,185 Interest paid to Partners 37,80,279 Sub- total 4,80,60,494 Less: Interest as per Deed u/s 37,80,279 40(b) Total Income 4,42,80,215 Total Income ( rounding off) 4,42,80,220 There is no other activity or other source of income available to the firm

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

TDS (tax deduction at source) as required under section 194C was of Rs. 5,28,86,206/-, which consist of Rs. 1,68,29,000/- by Padmavati Gems to 187 Labour Contractor and Rs. 3,60,57,206/- by Parth Corporation to 258 Labour Contractor. Thus, the assessing officer disallowed Rs. 5,28,86,206/-on account of labour expenses

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J B SYNTEX 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.140/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2023

80 Taxmann.Com 272 (Bom), held that amendment to section 68 is prospective and applicable only from assessment year 2013-14. 12. With this background, now we shall proceed to examine in the assessee`s case under consideration, whether assessee has discharged his onus to prove, prima facie, the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital and share premium received

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

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper\nwas not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and\ndespite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating\ndetails/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp\nimaged 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

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper\nwas not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and\ndespite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating\ndetails/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp\nimaged 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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT vs. HAYWOOD HOSPITALITY(INDIA) PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kambledeputy Commissioner Of Haywood Hospitality(India) Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Surat 1St Floor, Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd., Near Bharti Park, Athwalines, Surat. [Pan : Aabcj9651 N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit(Dr) Respondent By: Shri Hiren R Vepari, Ar Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 O R D E R

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,13,33,549/ made on account of disallowance of salary expenses

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)

80,606 – Rs.76,91,588/-] which leads an addition of Rs.16,89,018/-. Therefore, the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) at Rs.35,65,140/- 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