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)

disallowed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(a) in assessment year 2012-13. However, on appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee was granted relief and on further appeals of the Revenue is pending before Tribunal. These facts were not controverted by Revenue. Thus, the assessee is liable to be succeeded on the principles of consistency

MS KALAMANDIR JEWELLERS LTD. ,SURAT vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by way of\nproportionate disallowance of interest at the rate of 10% per\nannum.\n4.1 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the\nmaterial available on record. It is an undisputed position that\nduring the year under consideration the assessee incurred interest\nexpenditure amounting to ₹8,23,97,819/-, which

JAYSHRI GOPALLAL MAHARAJSHRINI SURAT SRUSTI TRUST,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

disallowing the claim of exemption under section 12A Jayshri Gopallal Maharajshrini Surat Srusti Trust vs. ITO (E) Asst. Year –2022-23 - 4– of the Act on account of delay in filing of Form 10B, along with return of income. 6. We observe that in the case of Brahmchari Wadi Trust vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) [2025] 173 taxmann.com

SHREE SUIGAM KHODADHOR PANJARA POLE,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

disallowing the exemption claimed by assessee u/s 11 of the Act, amounting to Rs.26,70,63,238/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals). Shree Suigam Khodadhor Panjara Pole vs. ITO(E) Asst. Year –2019-20 - 3– 5. During the course of appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(Appeals

SHRI BIPINCHANDRA HIRALAL THAKKAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2126/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Ay.: (2013-14) Shri Bipinchandra Hiralal Thakkar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.60/61, Hari Ichha Society, Ward-1(2)6, Surat. Udhna Bhestan Road, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpt1432D (Assessee) (Respondent)

161 Interest on Unsecured Loan obtained from Bipin Thakkar – HUF 81,000 Interest on Unsecured Loan obtained from two parties. 59,125 Other interest on Unsecured Loan. 3 Job work party 1,47,718 15,038 Jobwork Charges paid to one party for which TDS provisions u/s. 194C is not applicable as the amount paid is below Rs.30,000/- 1

SUDHIR BHUPENDRA DESAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INT. TAX), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.92/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sudhir Bhupendra Desai Income Tax Officer, (Int. Tax), 106, ‘Shriyam’, Nehru Nagar, Room No.107, 1St Floor, Vs Ichhanath, Svr College, S.O., Income-Tax Office, Surat Surat-395007 Anavil Business Centre, Pan No: Axdpd 7887 Q Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

161 Taxman 218 SC). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee upheld the penalty levied by Assessing Officer by referring the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del). The Ld. CIT(A) also held that assessee cannot take plea that he was unaware

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

disallowance made under section 40A(2)(b) of Rs.5,912 without appreciating that payment made to related party for purchase of material was excessive as compared to other party. 150. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the CIT (A) has deleted this ground by observing that the assessee has purchased

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

disallowance made under section 40A(2)(b) of Rs.5,912 without appreciating that payment made to related party for purchase of material was excessive as compared to other party. 150. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the CIT (A) has deleted this ground by observing that the assessee has purchased

SHRI RAM EDUCATION & GRAMINVIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTION WARD), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainishri Ram Education & I.T.O., (Exemption Ward) Graminvikas Charitable Trust, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jauagauri Park, Hathikhana, Majura Gate, Dharampur, Surat. Valsad-396050. Pan No. Aalts 324 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowance was deleted thereby granted relief of Rs. 10,77,780/-. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed by the present appeal before this Tribunal. 11. We have heard the submissions of the learned authorised representative (Ld. A.R) of the assesse and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax/Departmental Representative (CIT- DR) for the revenue and have gone through the orders

NA vs. ARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN,NAVSARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.272/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, V The Income Tax Officer, Agiary Street, Malesar, Navsari S Exemption Ward, Surat. Taluka, Navsari – 396 445. . [Pan: Aaatn 6124 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri H.R.Vepari – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Vaishav – Cit - Dr

Disallowance of exemption u/s.11(1)(d) of the Act: ON the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the CIT(A) was not justified in not granting exemption u/s.11(1)(d) of the Act in respect of voluntary contributions received as forming part of corpus trust or received for specific purposes. (V) Miscellaneous: The appellant craves leave

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

161/- \nATC Coins\nRs. 85,44,151/- \nIncome from sales of ATC\nRs. 19,18,616/- \nBitconnect (BCC)\nRs.3,79,598/- \nRs.68,40,43,526/-\n2\nAddition of unaccounted business receipt\nRs.85,50,954/- \n3\nAddition of unexplained expenditure on house renovation\nRs. 1,01,57,149/- \nTotal\nRs. 70,30,21,910/- \n\n7. The AO further noted that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, SURAT vs. SHRI SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross appeal of\nthe assessee is partly allowed

161/-\nATC Coins\nRs. 85,44,151/-\nIncome from sales of ATC\nRs. 19,18,616/-\nBitconnect (BCC)\nRs.3,79,598/-\nRs.68,40,43,526/-\n2\nAddition of unaccounted business receipt\nRs.85,50,954/-\n3\nAddition of unexplained expenditure on house renovation\nRs. 1,01,57,149/-\nTotal\nRs. 70,30,21,910/-\n7. The AO further noted that during

THE SURAT PEOPLES CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,(OSD)-II,, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.957/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Surat Peoples Co-Operative Bank Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. ‘Vasundhara Bahavan’, Timaliyawad, Nanpura, Surat – 395 001. [Pan: Aaaat 2885 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance made by him and the submissions made by the appellant in this regard and the facts of the case including the accounting in earlier years. The following material observations are made on the issue: (1) As per Section 6 read with Section 5(b) and (c) Banking regulation Act and as per the guideline issued by the Reserve Bank

DINESHCHANDRA NARHARISHANKAR UPADHYAY,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.120/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshchandra Narharishankar Principal Commissioner Of Upadhyay, 5/1203, Main Income-Tax-1, Room No. 123, Vs. Road, Haripura, Surat-395003 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpu 1094 J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-D.R

disallowed by Assessing Officer and to be added to the total income for the year under consideration. From the above facts, the Ld. PCIT observed that Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order without proper verification/inquiry on the issue as mentioned above which should have been made during the course of assessment proceedings and thereby rendering the assessment order

JAYVADAN RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

1,11,386/- was made till date even after passage of five years of time an amount of Rs. 13,73,766/- was mentioned outstanding. The Assessing Officer suspected that the full payments has not been made till date even when no regular business is done by the assessee without M/s. S.K. Enterprises and therefore held that these purchases

DISHANT SURESHBHAI PATEL,INDIVIDUAL vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(6), SURAT

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

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

161, Moti Street, Pal Gam, Pal Ward-3(2)(6), Surat-395009 Surat [PAN : BKRPP 5335 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent represented by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR Date of Hearing 23.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal has been filed