M/S. K.N. DIAMOND,,BILIMORA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1788/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S K.N.Diamond, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Soniwad, Bilimora, Of Income Tax, Navsari Navsari – 396 321. Circle, Navsari. [Pan: Aadfk 3167 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Parimalsinh Parmar – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

3,50,030/-. The learned AR for the assessee submits that during the assessment, the assessing officer noted that assessee has paid interest to certain related parties @18% per annum. The assessing officer treated the interest rate @15% as reasonable based on rate of interest on other loans i.e. to non related parties and, accordingly worked out disallowance of Rs.3.50

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)

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.13,48,049/- for the alleged default u/s 40(a)ia) r.w.s 194C of the Act, treating the payment towards the purchase of internet bandwidth being the transactions falls within the ambit of “sale of Goods

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, 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)

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.13,48,049/- for the alleged default u/s 40(a)ia) r.w.s 194C of the Act, treating the payment towards the purchase of internet bandwidth being the transactions falls within the ambit of “sale of Goods

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD.),VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.2886/Ahd/2010, 794/Ahd/2014 & 1769/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 बनाम M/S. Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Addl. Cit Range- ( Now Known As M/S. Bayer Vapi Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Private Limited) 306/3,Phase-Ii Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyer - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O. P. Singh Cit (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 26.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Three Appeals For The Assessment Year 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Dated 28.07.2010 & Dated 15.01.2014 Respectively Under The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] On The Direction Of Drp By The Addl. Cit Range-Vapi Range Vapi (Herein After Referred As The Ao) & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Dated 29.04.2016. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed As Under: It(Tp)A No.2886/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 2006-07/ By The Assessee: 2. Ground Nos.1 Is General In Nature & Do Not Require Adjudication.

194C hence, same is disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The DRP has also held that the assessee is a company having distinct identity and it was required to deduct tax at source. Hence, confirmed the action of the AO. 47. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee

THE ITO, WARD-1,, NA vs. ARIVS.SHRI ANILKUMAR AMRUTLAL CHAHWALA, NAVSARI

In the result, this ground of appeal is rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2078/Ahd/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1003/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Amrutlal Chahwala, Ward-(1), Navsari. 102, Trimurti Complex, Vijalpore, Navsari. [Pan: Abnpc 6308 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

section 194C was of Rs. 5,28,86,206/-, which consist of Rs. 1,68,29,000/- by Padmavati Gems to 187 Labour Contractor and Rs. 3,60,57,206/- by Parth Corporation to 258 Labour Contractor. Thus, the assessing officer disallowed

JAVAHARLAL S DHARIWAL,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.203/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Javaharlal S Dhariwal Income Tax Officer, 886 Old Gidc, Nr. Bank Of Ward-1(2)(2), Surat-395001 Vs Baroda, Katargam, Surat- 395004 Pan No: Aaypd 4207 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mahul Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 28.04.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [For Short To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 30.01.2020 For Assessment Year 2013- 14, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income-Tax Officer-Ward-1(2)(2), Surat/Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & 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 Making A Disallowance Of Rs.3,45,378/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. Javaharlal S Dhariwal 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer By Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.2,46,915/- Out Of Total Disallowance Of Rs.4,93,830/- On Account Of Machinery Salary Expenses. 3. On The Facts & 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 Making Addition Of Rs.3,95,466/- Being Interest Expenses Claimed U/S 57 Of The Act.

194C 2 Javaharlal S Dhariwal r.w.s. 194A of the Act. The assessee was given show cause by the assessing officer as to such expenses may not be disallowed. The assessing officer recorded that no response was made nor any detailed like PAN, or addresses of the parties were furnished. The Assessing Officer in absence of detailed made a disallowance

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)

disallowance under section 14A, while passing assessment order 15.01.2016. The assessment order was revised ld. Pr.CIT by exercising his jurisdiction under section 263 dated 20.03.2018. Before passing, the revision order, the ld. Pr. CIT, on perusal of assessment record noted that assessee has shown the sales of services above ten lakh and have shown total revenue on account of rendering

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL CO. PVT LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

194C, 194J and 192 of the Act, the appellant was entitled to claim expenses without disallowance of 30% of such expenses. 4.2 The ld. AR further submitted that as the difference between the sale consideration received by assessee and value of stamp valuation authority was less than 10%, no addition u/s 50C was necessary. The ld. AR has filed

ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT vs. M/S. SATYAM ENTERPRISE, SURAT

In the result, this part of issue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., M/S Satyam Enterprise, Ward- 3(3)(4), 182-Thakordwar Society, Nr. Vs. Surat. Spinning Mill, Varachha Road, Surat. Pan No. Abvfs 5076 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 194C ought to have deducted by assessee, however, the same was not deducted. After going through the list of 11 parties, the assessee furnished the details of all parties who have paid the tax on such receipt, however, the Assessing Officer not considered and passed the assessment order hurriedly without considering that all the parties have filed their return

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ROSHAN,,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD,, VAPI

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3153/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2007-08 Shri Vijay Kumar Roshan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4-First Floor, Shreeji Ward, Silvasa Apartment Kilavani, Naka Silvasa Pan: Aempr 1339 H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

194C on payments made to 6 sub- contractors amounting to Rs. 61,02,981. Therefore, the AO disallowed the said payments under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The CIT (A) in his order dtd. 24.08.2010 upheld the order of the AO thereby disregarded the additional evidence filed under Rule Vijay Kumar Roshan v. ITO-Silvasa/I.T.A. No.3153/Ahd/2016/A.Y

LITECON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,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 अपीलसं./Ita No.220/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Litecon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Surat, 1, 123, 1St Floor, Aaykar Block No.255, Navi Pardi, B/H Vs. Kamrej Sugar, Joy N Joy Road, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395002 Kamrej, Surat-394150 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcl 8007 A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

disallowance, as per the provisions of Section 194C r.ws. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee has requested to drop the proceedings, initiated u/s 263 of the Act contending that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3

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)

disallowing interest expense amounting to Rs.10,12,346/- and Job work expenses of Rs.1,46,718/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act without considering the facts of the case favorably. [3] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as law on the subject, the Honorable CIT (A)-2, Surat erred in confirming the addition made

KISHOR RAMESHBHAI MEHTA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.60/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Kishor Rameshbhai Mehta Vs. Ito, Prop. Of Aditya Infrastructure, Ward - 1(5), 139, Maher Nagar, Opp. Baps Bharuch Hospital, Adajan Gam Circle, Surat - 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adepm 4458 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

194C. Expenses disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Office in making addition of Rs.9,156/-.Late payment of EPF added

MEGA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

3) of the Act, on account of expenditure incurred in cash. 4. Disallowance of Rs. 73,605/- being 30% of Rs. 2,45,350/-, made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source on payment made to Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. The total addition made by the Assessing Officer

N R CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.526/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) N. R. Corporation, Vs. The Pcit - 1, B-202, Capital Status, Opp – Hariom Surat Nagar, Near Atman Park, L. P. Savani Road, Adajan, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamfn9368A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

194C and 194J of the Act are applicable to these expenses. However, the AO has not examined the same and not disallowed any amount u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Since the assessee failed to deduct tax on such expenditure, the AO should have disallowed an amount of Rs.48,04,045/-, being 30% of total expenses of Rs.1

BALA FILLING STATION,BHARUCH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shripawan Singh& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.822/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybridhearing) Bala Filling Station Vs. The Acit, Opp. Geb Substation, Jambusar Circle - 1, Road,Jambusar - 392150, Gujarat Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagfb8418F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 194C(6) were not applicable and the appellant submitted certificate from the transporter as additional evidence under rule 46A of the income tax ruled before the learned CIT Appeals (NFAC). 3. The conclusion the Appellant prays that addition of Rs.4,26,950/- be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the above Appellant reserves its right to make any amendment

SURESHBHAI MANIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2,, 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.103/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sureshbhai Manibhai Patel Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-2, Surat 2Nd Floor, Room At & P.O.Vanskui, Vanskui, Vs. Tal. Mahuva, Dist Surat- No. 227, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, 394240 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anbpp 7561 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 2010-11. Grievances raised by the assessee, which, being interconnected, will be taken up together, are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income