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

vii) at Page No. 10 of assessment order and submitted that DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat Vs. Kejriwal Industries Ltd.,/ITA No.1509/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 Page 26 of 49 the AO has observed that the ACIT-TDS, Ranchi has categorically mentioned as finding of fact that all of the alleged lenders are family members or associates of either

M/S. R.WADIWALA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1566/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. R. Wadiwala Securities Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer, 9/2003-04, Limda Chowk Main Road, Ward-4(1), Surat. Surat-395 003. [Pan: Aajpt 4629 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

1),Surat/ITA. 1656/AHD/2013/A.Y.2009-10 Page 6 of 8 provided by the Stock Exchange would make the same a kind of a facility provided by the Stock Exchange for transacting business rather than a technical service provided to one or a section of the members of the Stock Exchange to deal with special situations faced by such a member

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

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

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

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , TDS, CPC, SURAT

9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years\n(AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals\nbefore the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A(1) of the Act by the\nTDS, CPC, Bengaluru for the above years. Since facts are same, with consent\nof both parties

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

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.

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, pleaded that assessee is in second round of appeal before this Tribunal and all facts of the assessee is on record therefore the matter should not be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), although there is violation of provisions of section 251(1

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.

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, pleaded that assessee is in second round of appeal before this Tribunal and all facts of the assessee is on record therefore the matter should not be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), although there is violation of provisions of section 251(1

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.

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, pleaded that assessee is in second round of appeal before this Tribunal and all facts of the assessee is on record therefore the matter should not be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), although there is violation of provisions of section 251(1

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.

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, pleaded that assessee is in second round of appeal before this Tribunal and all facts of the assessee is on record therefore the matter should not be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), although there is violation of provisions of section 251(1

ACIT, CC - 2., SURAT vs. M/S. MANGALMURTY DEVELOPERS, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.217/Srt/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. M/S. Mangalmurti Developers, Surat. 17/18, Astvinayak Raw House, Near Parshuram Garden, Adajan, Surat-395001. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aavfm9510C

vii) Misc work Nil 10/03/2016 8,36,806/- (viii) Plaster work Nil 10/03/2016 8,80,610/- (ix) Electrical work Nil 29/03/2016 5,10,600/- (x) Painting work 1 10/03/2016 4,56,200/- (xi) RCC Labour work Nil 23/03/2016 1,01,100/- Total 79,27,716/- The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has made direct expenses of Rs.82

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

TDS provisions. I. You have not furnished details of benefits given to interested persons from the income of the trust." 8. In response to the letter of CIT (E), one of the Trustees appeared on 24.09.2019 and filed written submission in respect to the details/explanation called for. The assessee, vide its reply dated 23.09.2019, submitted that clause

LATE MAHESH RAMANLAL MODI L/H MANISH MAHESH MODI,BHARUCH vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No. VII of appeal raised by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi, A.C.I.T., Through L-H Manish Mahesh Modi, Circle-1, Vs. Near Shakuntal Apartment, Dahej Bharuch. Bypass Road At Nandelav, Bharuch-392001 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adfpm 4030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

VII) Addition of Rs.61,10,903 in respect of sundry creditors: 2 Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi through L/H-Manish Mahesh Modi Vs ACIT (1) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in not entertaining additional evidence under Rule 46A, particularly when the appellant demonstrated that he was deprived of the reasonable opportunity during the assessment. (2) The learned

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

9, Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the different assessment years\n(AYs) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. All these appeals\nbefore the CIT(A) were against orders passed u/s 200A(1) of the Act by the\nTDS, CPC, Bengaluru for the above years. Since facts are same, with consent\nof both parties

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

vii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant craves its right to add, alter, amend, deleted, any of the ground of grounds of appeal.” 4. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee has filed original return of income for AY.2008-09, declaring total income at Rs.1,34,560/- on 21.08.2008. In assessee’s case

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

vii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant craves its right to add, alter, amend, deleted, any of the ground of grounds of appeal.” 4. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee has filed original return of income for AY.2008-09, declaring total income at Rs.1,34,560/- on 21.08.2008. In assessee’s case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PAMECHA, AJMER

In the result the ground No

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

vii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant craves its right to add, alter, amend, deleted, any of the ground of grounds of appeal.” 4. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee has filed original return of income for AY.2008-09, declaring total income at Rs.1,34,560/- on 21.08.2008. In assessee’s case