MOHMEDAMIN MOHMEDUMAR GENERAL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

additional depreciation claimed u/s. 32(1)(iia) In the Return of Income. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण . वष" /A Y: 1 1992/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs Imperial Developers, Of Income Tax, . ‘Blossom’ Near Vesu Canal A.Y. 2013-14 Central Opp.Dps School, Circle-3, Surat – 395 Vesu, Surat. 001. [Pan: Aadfi 5694 R] िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah - Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Srinivas T.Bidari – Sr.Dr

additional income is being brought to tax on the basis of impounded diary, then the contents of the diary has to be accepted in totality and cannot be accepted in part. Hence, it is most humble submitted that the disclosed income is nothing but the business income of our firm and cannot be treated as income from other sources

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD vs. M/S. MANGALDEEP, VALSAD

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

income. Considering these facts, and respectfully following the judgment of ITA.699/SRT/2018 & CO.11/SRT/2021 AYs.2015-16 M/s Mangaldeep jurisdictional Hon'ble, Gujarat High Court in the case of Mahskar General Hospital (supra),we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A).That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid

VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED,VAPI vs. PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.582/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Vs. Pcit, 135, 1St Floor, Via House Gidc Char Valsad Rasta, Vapi – 396195, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacv8289P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms Arti N. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/08/2025

income by way of effluent treatment charges received from the members is exempt and also holding that addition of Rs.2,66,90,799/- made by disallowing depreciation

SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEWA MANDAL TRUST,UNA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.204/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Sewa Vs. The Ito, Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘Nfac), Delhi, In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036051308(1) Dated 30.09.2021, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

addition on account of depreciation, the total income comes at Nil. That is, total income computed by the assessee and assessing

SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ,SURAT vs. SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 998/Srt/2024 (Ay 2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Sahajanand Medical Technologies Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Ltd. Nr. Dabholi Char Rasta, Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat, Room बनाम Ved Road, No.602, 6Th Floor, Vs Surat-395 004 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, [Pan : Aafcs 7694 L] Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

additional depreciation of Rs.7,32,078/- in assessment year 2006-07, it was to be allowed in subsequent assessment year i.e., in assessment year 2007-08, which was not allowed. The assessee has shown return of income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S SURAT LIFE CARE PVT. LTD., SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S. Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3, Unique Hospital, Opp. Kiran Motor, Surat Nr. Sosyo Circle Lane, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarcs8396M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By 14/12/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

addition to the original return filed on 12.10.2013.There were some discrepancies in the two returns of incomes. In the original return of income there was no claim of depreciation

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, SURAT vs. UJALA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhwith Co No.29/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Vs. Ujala Dyeing & Printing Surat. S/112, Jj A.C. Market Ring Road Dist. Surat Pan : Aaacu 2949 M "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ujala Dyeing & Printing Vs. Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) S/112, Jj A.C. Market Surat. Ring Road Dist. Surat Pan : Aaacu 2949 M (Applicant) (Respondent)

addition of Rs.47,81,000/- which was added by the AO by declining prayer of the assessee to set off depreciation against the income

UJALA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhwith Co No.29/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Vs. Ujala Dyeing & Printing Surat. S/112, Jj A.C. Market Ring Road Dist. Surat Pan : Aaacu 2949 M "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ujala Dyeing & Printing Vs. Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) S/112, Jj A.C. Market Surat. Ring Road Dist. Surat Pan : Aaacu 2949 M (Applicant) (Respondent)

addition of Rs.47,81,000/- which was added by the AO by declining prayer of the assessee to set off depreciation against the income

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXAMPTION) WARD, SURAT vs. SHREE SAIBABA SATSANG MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

addition on account of depreciation of Rs.28,46,631/-. We note that Assessing Officer has disallowed depreciation claimed by the assessee of Rs 28,46,631/- for the reason that entire cost of said assets is allowed as deduction as "application of income

BHARUCH DISTRICT CO OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,BHARUCH vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) The Bharuch District Co Op Milk A.C.I.T. Producers Union Limited, Circle-1, Vs. Old N.H. 8, Bholav, Bharuch. Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aaaat 1470 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

income of Rs. 11,76,700/-. At the time of passing assessment order, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 14,83,140/- on account of SAP software expenses by treating the same as capital expenditure against the revenue expenditure claimed by assessee. Addition of Rs. 9,29,138/- was made on account of depreciation

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

depreciation.” 59. We have heard both the parties. We note that the amount of Rs.4,31,479/- was treated as income of the assessee from unexplained sources which has been invested and added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration, on account of fixed assets. Since we have deleted the addition

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

depreciation.” 59. We have heard both the parties. We note that the amount of Rs.4,31,479/- was treated as income of the assessee from unexplained sources which has been invested and added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration, on account of fixed assets. Since we have deleted the addition

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

depreciation.” 59. We have heard both the parties. We note that the amount of Rs.4,31,479/- was treated as income of the assessee from unexplained sources which has been invested and added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration, on account of fixed assets. Since we have deleted the addition

M/S. SHANGRILA LATEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Shangrila Latex Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Circle-4, C/O. B.M. Parekh & Co., 203, 2Nd Surat. Floor, Navjivan Society, Bldg. No. 03, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaics1479E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjay S. Kapadia, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2022 28/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

income of your company and set off of brought forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation allowed are inadmissible and therefore, the same is also required to be disallowed. In view of the same you are requested to show cause as to why addition

SHYAM CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

addition to our total income than please given us a personal hearing before taking any decision in this matter......." 8. However, the ld. PCIT rejected the contentions of the assessee and observed that assessee has claimed expenses towards total service tax paid of Rs. 25,33,800/-, total VAT of Rs.17,24,738/-. Further the firm has also

SHIVAM ENTERPRISE,ALTHAN vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

addition to our total income than please given us a personal hearing before taking any decision in this matter......." 8. However, the ld. PCIT rejected the contentions of the assessee and observed that assessee has claimed expenses towards total service tax paid of Rs. 25,33,800/-, total VAT of Rs.17,24,738/-. Further the firm has also

M/S COPER CO. OPERATIVE SUGAR LTD,TAPI vs. ITO WARD-2, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Coper Co-Operative Sugar Ltd., Vs. Ito, At & Post - Dadariya, Tal – Valod, Dist – Ward – 2, Tapi - 394630 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaac5824F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

additional transport expenses Rs.18,55,856/-, (iv) disallowance of cane development expenses Rs.29,34,014/-, (v) interest income of Rs.89,041/- and (vi) difference in creditor of Rs.21,046/-. The total income was determined at Rs.16,84,48,981/-. After set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation