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)

96,72,140/-. 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

SYAMA DYNAMIC ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.12 & 13/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: (2017-18 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Syama Dynamics Engineering P. Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Cpc, 405-408, Shivalik Western, Dr. Vikram Bengaluru. Sarabhai Marg, Adajan, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatcs2932H Assessee By Shri Ashwin Shah, Ca With Shri Bhadreshbhai Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

96,729 the assessee employees contribution is Rs.63,74,140 and balance amount includes the employees contribution received by sub-contractor. This is clarified by the CA by Certificate which was submitted to the learned CIT(A). The same is accepted by the learned CIT(A) by his Order dated 07.12.2021 and stated in Para No. 5.6 that "The sums

SYAMA DYNAMIC ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.12 & 13/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: (2017-18 To 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Syama Dynamics Engineering P. Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Cpc, 405-408, Shivalik Western, Dr. Vikram Bengaluru. Sarabhai Marg, Adajan, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aatcs2932H Assessee By Shri Ashwin Shah, Ca With Shri Bhadreshbhai Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

96,729 the assessee employees contribution is Rs.63,74,140 and balance amount includes the employees contribution received by sub-contractor. This is clarified by the CA by Certificate which was submitted to the learned CIT(A). The same is accepted by the learned CIT(A) by his Order dated 07.12.2021 and stated in Para No. 5.6 that "The sums

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

96,000/- under section 54B of Income Tax Act/-. (5) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming action of assessing officer in making disallowance of Rs. 2,40,540 under section 54F of the Act. (6) Appellant craves leaves to add, after a delete

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)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 04.12.2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2019. Grounds

RAVINDRANTH J. MISHRA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS) of Rs.8,960/- while making payment of Rs.8,96,080/-, copy of Form 26AS is placed on record. 10. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that though return was already filed before ITO, Ward-3, Vapi and case of assessee 8 Ravindranath J. Mishra was reopened by Assessing Officer by recording reasons that no return of income was filed

VIKAS VAISHNAV,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.309/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Vikas Vaishnav Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Plot No.261/262, 2Nd Floor, Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Office, 123, 1St Floor, Aaykar Right Side, Jay Santoshi Nagar, L.H. Road, Surat – 394 210 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Anspv 9504 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

96,182/- to the returned income of Rs.1,98,550/-. Subsequently, Ld.PCIT called for the records and found that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of provision of Section 263 of the Act. The impugned issue which was 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT, SURAT vs. SHRINIDHI ENTERPRIZE , SURAT

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are, hereby, dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.914/Srt/2024 & 797/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Acit Shrinidhi Enterprize Central Circle-3 बनाम/ 6/1862, 63, Ground Floor Surat Ghanshyam Bhuvan V/S. Bali Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat – 395 003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acbfs 6484 R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

Section 44AD of the Act declaring trading income instead of job work income, and affidavits from parties controlled by Sadhani Brothers stated they provided accommodation entries as unsecured loans and had no actual business transactions. Also, no machinery or assets existed with the contractors that would be necessary for providing labour work. The AO observed that the assessee had booked

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. SHRINIDHI ENTERPRIZE, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are, hereby, dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.914/Srt/2024 & 797/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Acit Shrinidhi Enterprize Central Circle-3 बनाम/ 6/1862, 63, Ground Floor Surat Ghanshyam Bhuvan V/S. Bali Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat – 395 003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acbfs 6484 R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

Section 44AD of the Act declaring trading income instead of job work income, and affidavits from parties controlled by Sadhani Brothers stated they provided accommodation entries as unsecured loans and had no actual business transactions. Also, no machinery or assets existed with the contractors that would be necessary for providing labour work. The AO observed that the assessee had booked

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, 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.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram

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.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram

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.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram

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.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, 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.

Section 142(3). This requirement is emphasized by the various decisions quoted by AR in this submission (supra). 7.1.3 Requirement of giving materials proposed to be relied by the ld. AO t0 the appellant is a statutory requirement , failure to do it is fatal to the assessment as held in many judicial pronouncements such as; (Gangaram

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

96,897). The assessee was asked to explain the difference of Rs. 5,36,794/- and why it should not be considered as unexplained investment. The assessee filed its reply dated 20/12/2019. In the reply, the assessee submitted that in show cause notice, the difference Rs. 53,67,940/- pointed out on account of investment in immovable property. The assessee

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.

section 80P Gandevi Taluka Khedut Sahakari Sangh Ltd. to be claimed) and turnover for other activities (where deduction u/s 80P should not be claimed by assessee): Gandevi Taluka Khedut Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 22. From the above chart, it is clear that ratio of turnover on which deduction is claimed is at 15.33%, whereas ratio of turnover on which deduction

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.

section 80P Gandevi Taluka Khedut Sahakari Sangh Ltd. to be claimed) and turnover for other activities (where deduction u/s 80P should not be claimed by assessee): Gandevi Taluka Khedut Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 22. From the above chart, it is clear that ratio of turnover on which deduction is claimed is at 15.33%, whereas ratio of turnover on which deduction

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.

section 80P Gandevi Taluka Khedut Sahakari Sangh Ltd. to be claimed) and turnover for other activities (where deduction u/s 80P should not be claimed by assessee): Gandevi Taluka Khedut Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 22. From the above chart, it is clear that ratio of turnover on which deduction is claimed is at 15.33%, whereas ratio of turnover on which deduction