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

Section 9(l)(v)(b), it cannot fall within the ambit of income accrued and arisen in India and hence, we find no merit in the arguments of the revenue that the income in question has accrued and arisen in India and consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS on the same. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses towards Employees contribution to provident fund/shortfall Rs.29,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee is using this fund to cover up shortfall and pay employees contribution which is in fact

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

TDS on the same. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses towards Employees contribution to provident fund/shortfall Rs.29,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee is using this fund to cover up shortfall and pay employees contribution which is in fact

THE ACIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. RAMDEV CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2999/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Ramdev Chemical Of Income Tax, Bharuch Industries, 3441-B, Gidc, Circle - Bharuch Industrial Estate Ankleshwar Pan: Aacfr3839A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

vi) & (vii) of sec.9(1) were also not applicable in the case under consideration. The Explanation to section 9(2) inserted by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect (01.06.1996) was also not applicable since the said explanation was not applicable to sub clause (i) of section 9 of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee relied in the case

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

9 above in this order. We find that the AO has observed that the ACIT-TDS, Ranchi has categorically mentioned the finding of fact that all the alleged lenders are family members or associates of either Shri N. K. Kejriwal or Shri Jeevan Kumar Das, who are the promotors of the assessee company. In para 8.2 (vi

SHRI PIYUSHKUMAR AMBALAL SHROFF,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, BHARUAH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1692/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2003-04 Shri Piyushkumr A. Shroff (Huf), V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Ketan H Shah, Advocate, . Income-Tax, 93 Sapphire Complex, C G Road, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009 Pan: Aachp 9491 E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

VI; Baroda (in short “the CIT (A)”) dated 14.03.2014 pertaining to Assessment Year 2003- 04. 2. The sole grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 3,04,750 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. CIT (A). 3. Succinct facts are that the assessment was framed under section

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 of Rs. 1,62,489/- on sales deducted by Gaurang Yogeshbhai Shah. Thus, it required to verify details of whether the assessee had offered the ITA 392/SRT/2018 Sach Electro Mech P Ltd. Vs PR.CIT income receipt from sales or not. And thirdly in Note 22 of Audit report, of column of other expenses of service tax and VAT debiting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. JASHMIN KANTILAL PATEL, VAPI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.125/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Jashmin Kantilal Patel, Vapi Circle, Plot No.320/9, 40 Shed Area, Gidc, Vapi Vapi – 396191. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agcp0492M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 09/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

section 143(1) of the Act, to the tune of Rs.2,13,98,205/- (The said income / addition of Rs.2,13,98,205/- relates to total TDS of Rs.1,60,305/-). 5. On appeal by assessee, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition observing as follows: “Facts of the case and appellant's submission were perused. Taxability of income comes

SMT. URVASHI SANJAYKUMAR GUPTA,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainismt. Urvashi Sanjaykumar Gupta, I.T.O., Ratna Vihar Apartment, New City Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Light, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Aanpg 4855 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submissions of learned authorised representative (AR) of the assessee and the learned departmental representative (DR) of the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that no concealment was detected nor any show cause notice

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

vi) From the table noted by the ld.CIT(A) at page 23 it is also vivid that in A.Y. 2011-12, which is under consideration, the growth of turnover was 139.77% and growth in the profit was 45.84% and the remuneration was increased by 87.64% and these facts collectively show that the additional remuneration / commission has been paid

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

vi) From the table noted by the ld.CIT(A) at page 23 it is also vivid that in A.Y. 2011-12, which is under consideration, the growth of turnover was 139.77% and growth in the profit was 45.84% and the remuneration was increased by 87.64% and these facts collectively show that the additional remuneration / commission has been paid

STAR EDUCATION TRUST,SURAT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.539/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Court Hearing) The Star Education Trust, Vs. The Cit(Exemption), 9A, Ratnanilam Apartment, Piplod, Ahmedabad. Surat-395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts2856F

section. On perusal of the reply, it was noticed by Ld. CIT(E) that some details were not provided. Accordingly, a letter was issued by ld CIT (E ) online on 20.09.2019 requesting the assessee to submit the below mentioned details/documents/reply on 24.09.2019. “1. Please furnish self-certified copy of Trust deed. 1. Please furnish self-certified copy of registration certificate

ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL,SURAT vs. CIT EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

1)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest-free advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- given to the trustee, thereby sustaining the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act to that extent. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-SURAT, SURAT vs. ABHYUTHTHAN GRAM VIKAS MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

1)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest-free advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- given to the trustee, thereby sustaining the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act to that extent. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

9. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. The submission on all three additions is recorded in para 5 of order of ld. CIT(A). On the addition/disallowance of commission payment, the assessee submitted that the assessee paid commission

SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

9. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. The submission on all three additions is recorded in para 5 of order of ld. CIT(A). On the addition/disallowance of commission payment, the assessee submitted that the assessee paid commission

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

ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT vs. SHRI ARVINDBHAI RATANBHAI MOKANI, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Arvindbhai Ratanbhai Mokani, Ward-3(3)(1), D-260-261, Vittal Nagar Society, Vs. Surat. Varachha Road, Hira Baug, Surat-395006. Pan No. Ahfpm 2302 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

1,49,80,000/- (vi) Addition on account of unexplained advances given of Rs. 65,00,000/-. 3. The Assessing Officer made all the above additions by taking view that the assessee was served six show cause notices, however, despite service of notices, the assessee has not furnished any detail to substantiate various claims made in the return of income

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

1,00,42,365 4,71,50,420 Inventory Profit 18,900 2,23,10,214 On perusal of above, the assessing officer was of the view that contention of the assessee is not correct that it has earned profit from its export activity. During the course of hearing, the assessee company was asked to explain why the cost