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

201 of the Act no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid factual and respectfully following the decisions of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs SK Tekriwal (supra) and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Prayas Engineering Ltd (supra), the ground

THE UDHNA CITIZEN CO OPP. BANK LIMITED ,NOW MERGE WITH KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.OP. BANK LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. I.T.O TDS -2 , SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, the assessee cannot escape the consequence of failure to deduct TDS as stipulated u/s.201(1) of the Act. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and section 201(1) operate in The Udhna Citizen cooperative Bank Limited vs. ITO, Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 5– different domain and are not mutually exclusive to each

SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowed the percentage of disputed purchases @ 18% of the purchases. The ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee without appreciating the evidence on record. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 5% of the disputed purchases which is on lower side. 27. On the submission of ld. AR of the assessee, no addition

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTERS PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowed the percentage of disputed purchases @ 18% of the purchases. The ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee without appreciating the evidence on record. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 5% of the disputed purchases which is on lower side. 27. On the submission of ld. AR of the assessee, no addition

HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

disallowance of Rs.15,45,212/- under section 40A(3)(b) of the Act totaling to Rs.33,73,201/-. These grounds

SHRI AYUSH MURALILAL AGARWAL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2622/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Ayush Murarilal Agarwal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Brijvilla Bunglow, Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(3)(1) Surat B/H Gokul Row House, Parley Point Surat 395 007 [Pan: Acypa 9649 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala - Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri B. P. K. Panda, Sr. D.R.

201(1), the same were required to be disallowed for computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. I am therefore, satisfied that this is a fit case for invoking provision of section

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 201 of the Income Tax Act,1961? 4. Whether, on the facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance to Rs. 1,56,193/- out of Rs. 3

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 4 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court - Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.262/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., V The Income Tax Officer, C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, S Ward-2(1)(2), Surat. Timaliyawad, Nanpura, . Surat – 395 001. [Pan: Aaics 8963 M] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Manish J.Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

3 relates to disallowance of interest paid on TDS. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the interest paid by the assessee is not a penalty and compensatory in nature and is allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act. In support of his submissions the Ld. AR for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. JAYSHREE AROMATICS PVT. LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Commissioner Jayshree Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Plot No.4703, 4704, 4705/1-4, Vs Circle-2, Bharuch. Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar, Dist. Bharch – 393002. Pan: Aabcj 8258 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

3. Aggrieved by the action of AO in disallowing deduction under section 10B of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. Submissions of assessee are recorded in para 3.9 at page no.7 to 23 of his order. In submissions, the assessee in sum and substance submitted

BHAVNA ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Bhavna Enterprise, Vs. The Adit, 30, Ambika Nagar Society, Cpc, Bengaluru Hazira Road, Ichchhapore, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer: Surat - 394510 The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfb5274K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 *** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought ITA.487/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Bhavna Enterprise to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4-1984 *** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ), SURAT, SURAT vs. M/S. STAR RAYS,, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Income Tax Officer Star Rays, (International Taxation), Shivam Chambers, Vs Surat. Khand Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat – 395009. Pan: Aamfs 1942 B Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

201(1)/201(1A) dated 23.08.2017 for assessment year (A.Y.) 2015-16. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: “i) The Ld. CIT(A)-13, Ahmedabad has erred in facts and in law in holding that in view of the TRC and Form No. 10F furnished by M/s GIA Inc. USA from the tax authority

SURAT DISTRICT CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Surat District Co-Op. Dy. Commissioner Of Milk Producer’S Union Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Vs Sumul Dairy Road, Station Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Road, Surat Gate, Surat Pan : Aaaas 3450 M Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

disallowed the amount by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia). 3 The Surat Dist. Co-Op Milk Producers’ Union Ltd. 3. Aggrieved by the addition, the assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submission. The detailed written submission are recorded by him in para-7 of his order

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.

3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed his detailed submission on various disallowances. The submission of assessee is recorded in para-5 of order of Ld. CIT(A). On the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.3,45,378/-, the assessee submitted that payments

SHRI PRAKASHBHAI HARIBHAI AHIR,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Shri Prakashbhai Haribhai Ahir, I.T.O., 23, Ashish Society, B/H Navyug Ward-1, (3)(8), Vs. College, Rander Road, Surat. Surat-395009. Pan No. Abfpa 9237 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 201 of the Act certifying that the payee i.e. M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd. has included interest income in their return of income and upheld the disallowance of interest expenses for the want of TDS of such payment to NBFC. So far as the addition qua the interest expenses of 3

SMT NITUBEN PRADEEP DHINGRA,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act. 3. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, [in short “the ld. PCIT”], has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961. On perusal of Scrutiny records, Ld PCIT noticed that assessee has shown an amount of Rs.29,90,030/- under the head "income from

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as “Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]”, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as “Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]”, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh