BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

iii) Held for Trading (HFT). As per the guidelines investment made under the available for sale (AFS) category should be marked to market periodically. It was further submitted that assessee-bank is allowed to shift securities investment held to maturity category to AFS category with approval of Board of Directors, once a year as per RBI’s guidelines. The assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

iii) Held for Trading (HFT). As per the guidelines investment made under the available for sale (AFS) category should be marked to market periodically. It was further submitted that assessee-bank is allowed to shift securities investment held to maturity category to AFS category with approval of Board of Directors, once a year as per RBI’s guidelines. The assessee

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

iii) Held for Trading (HFT). As per the guidelines investment made under the available for sale (AFS) category should be marked to market periodically. It was further submitted that assessee-bank is allowed to shift securities investment held to maturity category to AFS category with approval of Board of Directors, once a year as per RBI’s guidelines. The assessee

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

iii) Held for Trading (HFT). As per the guidelines investment made under the available for sale (AFS) category should be marked to market periodically. It was further submitted that assessee-bank is allowed to shift securities investment held to maturity category to AFS category with approval of Board of Directors, once a year as per RBI’s guidelines. The assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

iii) Held for Trading (HFT). As per the guidelines investment made under the available for sale (AFS) category should be marked to market periodically. It was further submitted that assessee-bank is allowed to shift securities investment held to maturity category to AFS category with approval of Board of Directors, once a year as per RBI’s guidelines. The assessee

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

iii) Held for Trading (HFT). As per the guidelines investment made under the available for sale (AFS) category should be marked to market periodically. It was further submitted that assessee-bank is allowed to shift securities investment held to maturity category to AFS category with approval of Board of Directors, once a year as per RBI’s guidelines. The assessee

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

capital receipt had been concluded against the revenue. The satisfaction of the Commissioner, therefore, was based on no material, either legal or factual, which would have given him the jurisdiction to take action under section 263.” 17. In view of the above submission, your honours are requested to quash the revision order passed

R.S. TRADELINK PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, 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.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

36,712 levied for the assessment year 1964-65 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that there was no concealment of income ?" Assessment Year.2008-09 R S Tradelink Pvt. Ltd 9. Since the Department has lost in both the references, we award costs to the assessee. Counsel

HOTEL SKYLINE PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, BHARUCH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are ( ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.690 & 691/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1), Bharuch Skyline Building, Old N.H. Vs. Nop.8, Nr. Hotel Maharaja, Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach 5317 A (Assessee) (Respondent)

36(1)(iii) of the Act should not be allowed, and interest expense should be allowed under section 57(iii) of the Act.We note that assessing officer has erred in holding that assessee claimed such expenses u/s 24 of the Act. It is to be noted that assessee claimed only the standard deduction

HOTEL SKYLINE PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, BHARUCH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are ( ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.690 & 691/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13 & 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(1), Bharuch Skyline Building, Old N.H. Vs. Nop.8, Nr. Hotel Maharaja, Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach 5317 A (Assessee) (Respondent)

36(1)(iii) of the Act should not be allowed, and interest expense should be allowed under section 57(iii) of the Act.We note that assessing officer has erred in holding that assessee claimed such expenses u/s 24 of the Act. It is to be noted that assessee claimed only the standard deduction

SHRI CHAMPAKBHAI AMBALAL PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3039/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat. 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8297 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3040/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S Ward-3(3), Surat. City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8296 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Hiren M.Diwan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iv, Surat Dated 27.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Page 2 Of 10 Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel & Other Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Surat. /Ita No’S.3039 & 3040/Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2010-11

iii) CIT V/s Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 259 CTR (P&H) 388. Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 12 & 13. The perusal of the above judgments clearly shows that the Hon'ble High Courts have laid down that the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 139 have to be treated as a proviso to sub-section

SHRI PANKAJBHAI AMBALAL PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3039/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat. 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8297 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3040/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S Ward-3(3), Surat. City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8296 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Hiren M.Diwan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iv, Surat Dated 27.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Page 2 Of 10 Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel & Other Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Surat. /Ita No’S.3039 & 3040/Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2010-11

iii) CIT V/s Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 259 CTR (P&H) 388. Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 12 & 13. The perusal of the above judgments clearly shows that the Hon'ble High Courts have laid down that the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 139 have to be treated as a proviso to sub-section

KALUBHAI DULABHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , SURAT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

36,82,767/- and profit on sale of plots of Rs.1,60,25,414/- under the head long term capital gains. Based on these facts, the assessing officer issued a show-cause notice dated 27.02.2015, wherein the assessee was asked to explain the transaction in respect of capital gain that why the income should not be taxed as business income

HOTEL SKYLINE PVT. LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.331 & 332/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Skyline Building, Old N.H. No.8, Ward-1(1), Bharuch Vs. Near Hotel Maharaja, Bharuch- Income Tax Office, Station Road, 392001 Hari Kunj Building, Above Bank Of Baroda, Bharuch-356069 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Aaach 5317 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 16.09.2022, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 143(3A R/W.S 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Vide Order Dated 06.12.2019 & 16.03.2021 Respectively.

36(1)(iii) of the Act should not be allowed, and interest expense should be allowed under section 57(iii) of the Act. We note that assessing officer has erred in holding that assessee claimed such expenses u/s 24 of the Act. It is to be noted that assessee claimed only the standard deduction

HOTEL SKYLINE PVT. LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.331 & 332/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Hotel Skyline Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Skyline Building, Old N.H. No.8, Ward-1(1), Bharuch Vs. Near Hotel Maharaja, Bharuch- Income Tax Office, Station Road, 392001 Hari Kunj Building, Above Bank Of Baroda, Bharuch-356069 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Aaach 5317 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 16.09.2022, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 143(3A R/W.S 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Vide Order Dated 06.12.2019 & 16.03.2021 Respectively.

36(1)(iii) of the Act should not be allowed, and interest expense should be allowed under section 57(iii) of the Act. We note that assessing officer has erred in holding that assessee claimed such expenses u/s 24 of the Act. It is to be noted that assessee claimed only the standard deduction

SHRI DHARMENDRABHAI BHIKHUBHAI PATEL, HUF,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

36 3125/AHD/2014 2009-10 Kanbi Mohallo, Tal: Vs Bhawan, Majura Choryasi, Dist. Surat Gate, Surat-395001 PAN: AEDPP 1042 G Ashok Dahyabhai ITO Wd-4(4), Patel, Vill. Mora, R.No.219, Aayakar 37 3126/AHD/2014 2009-10 Kanbi Mohallo,Tal: Vs Bhawan, Majura Choryasi, Dist. Surat Gate, Surat-395001 PAN:ADGPP 4840 C िनधा"रती कीओर से /Assessee by Shri Tinish

SHRI KARSANBHAI MORARBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

36 3125/AHD/2014 2009-10 Kanbi Mohallo, Tal: Vs Bhawan, Majura Choryasi, Dist. Surat Gate, Surat-395001 PAN: AEDPP 1042 G Ashok Dahyabhai ITO Wd-4(4), Patel, Vill. Mora, R.No.219, Aayakar 37 3126/AHD/2014 2009-10 Kanbi Mohallo,Tal: Vs Bhawan, Majura Choryasi, Dist. Surat Gate, Surat-395001 PAN:ADGPP 4840 C िनधा"रती कीओर से /Assessee by Shri Tinish

SHRI KAMLESHBHAI BHIKHUBHAI PATEL, HUF,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, SURAT

In the result, the corresponding ground of appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) िनधा"रणवष" S. आ.अ.सं./ अपीलाथ"/Appellant Vs ""थ"/Respondent / N.

36 3125/AHD/2014 2009-10 Kanbi Mohallo, Tal: Vs Bhawan, Majura Choryasi, Dist. Surat Gate, Surat-395001 PAN: AEDPP 1042 G Ashok Dahyabhai ITO Wd-4(4), Patel, Vill. Mora, R.No.219, Aayakar 37 3126/AHD/2014 2009-10 Kanbi Mohallo,Tal: Vs Bhawan, Majura Choryasi, Dist. Surat Gate, Surat-395001 PAN:ADGPP 4840 C िनधा"रती कीओर से /Assessee by Shri Tinish