NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 119(2)(b) of the Act or not and therefore, no straight jacket formula or guidelines can be laid down in this regard. However, such orders passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes being a quasi-judicial order is always open to judicial review by the higher constitutional courts. If the good conscience of the Courts is pricked

THE ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, SURAT vs. MICRO INKS LIMITED,, VAPI

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

119 of the Act, the Board hereby directs that in a case where the assessee fails to deduct tax under section 195 of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall determine the appropriate proportion of the sum chargeable to tax as mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 195 to ascertain the tax liability on which the deductor shall be deemed

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

119 of the Act, the Board hereby directs that in a case where the assessee fails to deduct tax under section 195 of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall determine the appropriate proportion of the sum chargeable to tax as mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 195 to ascertain the tax liability on which the deductor shall be deemed

NAVBHARAT CHERITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARUCH

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi Jhagadia, Bharuch, Ward-1, Vs. Gujarat, Pin-393115 Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 119(2)(b) of the Act or not and therefore, no straight jacket formula or guidelines can be laid down in this regard. However, such orders passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes being a quasi-judicial ITA 27/Srt/2023 Navbharat Charitable Trust Vs ITO order is always open to judicial review by the higher constitutional courts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, बनाम / Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Nani, Daman-396 210 Vs. Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement | 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, “NFAC/CIT(E)”] all dated 13.08.2024, for the Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, which in turn arose out of assessment orders passed by Assessing Officer (in short

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

119 CTR 0222 (SC). In case of W. Ramand Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. State of Madras AIR 1961 1 SC 1753 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that penal statute is generally considered as prospective. Those penal statutes which creates offence or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing offences will only be prospective by reason

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

119 CTR 0222 (SC). In case of W. Ramand Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. State of Madras AIR 1961 1 SC 1753 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that penal statute is generally considered as prospective. Those penal statutes which creates offence or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing offences will only be prospective by reason

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

119 CTR 0222 (SC). In case of W. Ramand Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. State of Madras AIR 1961 1 SC 1753 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that penal statute is generally considered as prospective. Those penal statutes which creates offence or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing offences will only be prospective by reason

KERMAN MINOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

119 CTR 0222 (SC). In case of W. Ramand Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. State of Madras AIR 1961 1 SC 1753 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that penal statute is generally considered as prospective. Those penal statutes which creates offence or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing offences will only be prospective by reason

KERMAN MONOCHER BUHARIWALA,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

119 CTR 0222 (SC). In case of W. Ramand Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. State of Madras AIR 1961 1 SC 1753 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that penal statute is generally considered as prospective. Those penal statutes which creates offence or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing offences will only be prospective by reason

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

119 CTR 0222 (SC). In case of W. Ramand Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. State of Madras AIR 1961 1 SC 1753 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that penal statutes are generally considered as prospective. Those penal statutes which creates offence or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing offences will only be prospective by reason

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

119 CTR 0222 (SC). In case of W. Ramand Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. State of Madras AIR 1961 1 SC 1753 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that penal statutes are generally considered as prospective. Those penal statutes which creates offence or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing offences will only be prospective by reason

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

119 CTR 0222 (SC). In case of W. Ramand Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. State of Madras AIR 1961 1 SC 1753 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that penal statutes are generally considered as prospective. Those penal statutes which creates offence or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing offences will only be prospective by reason

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, BANGLORE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

119 CTR 0222 (SC). In case of W. Ramand Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. State of Madras AIR 1961 1 SC 1753 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that penal statutes are generally considered as prospective. Those penal statutes which creates offence or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing offences will only be prospective by reason

SMT. KANCHANBEN PRAVINBHAI SHETH,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

capital gain to various beneficiaries. Ld. Sr. DR, therefore, contended that the LTCG exemption of Rs.37,45,935/- claimed u/s.10(38) of the Act by the assessee in her return of income was required to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee; however, the same remained to be done thereby rendering the assessment order passed

GAUTAM PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH HUF,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343 & 344/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kanchanben Pravinbhai Sheth Vs. Pcit - 1, Surat 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adops2971D (Appellant) (Respondent) Gautam Pravinbhai Sheth (Huf) Vs. Pcit - 1, 3/A, 1 St Floor, Royal Vila Apts., Surat Ghoddod Road, Surat (Jao: Ito, Ward – 1(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafhg1435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

capital gain to various beneficiaries. Ld. Sr. DR, therefore, contended that the LTCG exemption of Rs.37,45,935/- claimed u/s.10(38) of the Act by the assessee in her return of income was required to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee; however, the same remained to be done thereby rendering the assessment order passed

SOMA TECH PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.344/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Soma Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal 301, Soham House, Commissioner Of Income Opp. St. Xavier’S School, Tax-2, Surat. Ghod Dod Road, Surat. [Pan: Aakcs 5265 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari – Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr

2 Soma Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Surat../ ITA No.344/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Rs.1,76,23,119/- on 07.05.2012 and Rs.66,37,861/- on 12.11.2012. The ld. PCIT further noted that exchange difference of Rs.9,90,518/- and Rs.5,43,600/- were credited to Soma Tech Inc. (USA). Further, as per the Profit and Loss Account

DESAI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

119 CTR 0222 (SC). In case of W.Ramand Electric Distribution Co. Ltd. vs. State of Madras AIR 1961 1 SC 1753 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that penal statute are generally considered as prospective. Those penal statutes which creates offence or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing offences will only be prospective by reason