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

TDS), Surat u/s 271CA the Act, dated 25.02.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are as under: “1. On the facts and 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 levying of penalty of Rs.87,750/- u/s 271CA

SHIVAM RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,VALSAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shivam Residential Construction Principal Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Civil Income-Tax-Valsad, Palak Vs. Hospital Road, Nanakwada, Valsad Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapcs 3137 G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-D.R

TDS on payment made to contractor and sub-contractor. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 31.03.2016 accepting the returned income. 4. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Valsad (in short “ld. PCIT”] has exercised his jurisdiction, under section 263 of the Income

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:

133A of the Act were carried out involving the group known as Sadhani Brothers. This group was found to be involved in providing accommodation entries by managing financial affairs of about 873 persons/entities, which included parties with whom the assessee had transactions for labour work contracts. 3. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that during the search

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:

133A of the Act were carried out involving the group known as Sadhani Brothers. This group was found to be involved in providing accommodation entries by managing financial affairs of about 873 persons/entities, which included parties with whom the assessee had transactions for labour work contracts. 3. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that during the search

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

TDS deducted on\nthese interests are not deducted from demand calculation of the order. These\nmay be allowed to reduce the demand. This will accordingly reduce the\ndemand for recovery.\n5. In para 9 of the assessment order for the A.Yr. 2015-16 an income from\nbusiness of Rs.6,11,400 was added. This is total gross receipts. Total gross

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

survey on Alkem.\n5.1 The above submissions were forwarded by the CIT(A) to the AO for\nremand report because assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act. In the\nremand report, the AO requested not to admit any additional evidence. In fact,\nhe submitted that no additional evidence had been submitted by the assessee,\nas contended

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

survey on Alkem.\n5.1 The above submissions were forwarded by the CIT(A) to the AO for\nremand report because assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act. In the\nremand report, the AO requested not to admit any additional evidence. In fact,\nhe submitted that no additional evidence had been submitted by the assessee,\nas contended

CHANCHALBEN DAHYABHAI PATEL,DAMAN vs. ITO, DAMAN

survey on Alkem.\n5.1 The above submissions were forwarded by the CIT(A) to the AO for\nremand report because assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act. In the\nremand report, the AO requested not to admit any additional evidence. In fact,\nhe submitted that no additional evidence had been submitted by the assessee,\nas contended