V. M. MANIYAR EXPORTS,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1368/Srt/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) V.M.Maniyar Exports Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Plot No.103-104, Surat Income-Tax, Circle-2(2), Surat Vs. Special Economic Zone, Gidc, Sachin,Surat-394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaifv 6884 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

depreciation shall be granted, whether or not the assessee claims the same. The AO accordingly reduced profit by Rs.8,43,752/- and deduction was restricted to Rs.21,43,313/- instead of Rs.29,58,065/-. He also initiated penalty

PRAGATI GLASS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. FORMER NAME PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD.,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIR.1, , BARODA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pragati Glass & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, Kharach, Kosamba (R.S), Bharuch. District. Bharuch, Bharuch -392001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcp7377H

depreciation @15% is allowable which is of Rs.1,65,68,219/- and thus, remaining amount of Rs1,78,81,436/- is disallowed and added to the total income. Penalty

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. S D MATERIAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

penalty but it does not affect the passing of the title in the vehicle. It was, therefore, held that the assessees who purchased the vehicles were owners of the vehicles and were entitled to depreciation

SHYAMLAL LALCHAND SINGH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

depreciation on fresh fixed assets increased in fixed assets treated as income. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LTD., , VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is set aside and disposed of for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.152 & 153/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Ays: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vapi Circle, Vs. M/S. Vapi Green Enviro Ltd., 135, 1St Floor, Via House, Gidc, Vapi. Char Rasta, Vapi – 396195. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacv8289P Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri Aarti Shah, Ar 19/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023

penalty charges of Rs.52,961/- respectively. The assessee claimed it as a mutual association and claimed that effluent treatment charges collected from members is exempted. The Assessing Officer denied the mutuality and assessed the treatment charges as ‘business income’ and also disallowed the claim of depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LTD., , VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is set aside and disposed of for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.152 & 153/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Ays: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vapi Circle, Vs. M/S. Vapi Green Enviro Ltd., 135, 1St Floor, Via House, Gidc, Vapi. Char Rasta, Vapi – 396195. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacv8289P Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri Aarti Shah, Ar 19/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023

penalty charges of Rs.52,961/- respectively. The assessee claimed it as a mutual association and claimed that effluent treatment charges collected from members is exempted. The Assessing Officer denied the mutuality and assessed the treatment charges as ‘business income’ and also disallowed the claim of depreciation

SAGAR EMBROTECH,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1(2), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Sagar Embrotech, A.C.I.T., 94, Village Popada Hojiwala Circle-1(2), Vs. Industrial Estate, Gate No. 2, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Sachin Palsana Road, Gate, Surat. Surat-394230. Pan No. Abrfs 9325 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) of Rs. 2,22.240/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded on the additions of Rs. 7,19,234/- in the assessment order. The additions in the assessment order was on account of disallowance 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.” (vi) Ground No.6 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and 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 assessing officer in making the addition of Rs.51,460/- on account of disallowance

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.” (vi) Ground No.6 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and 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 assessing officer in making the addition of Rs.51,460/- on account of disallowance

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.” (vi) Ground No.6 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 194/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and 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 assessing officer in making the addition of Rs.51,460/- on account of disallowance

JANAKKUMAR MUKUNDPRASAD PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. 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 Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

penalty on such additions and the matter may be restore to the assessing officer for passing order afresh. 10.We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the order of Lower Authorities. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by the ld. AR for the assessee. We have also perused the contents

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

penalty in the appeal effect order, as the tax impact of the deleted addition of ₹70,50,000/- was not fully considered. Your appellant further reserves his right to add, alter or to amend any of the aforesaid grounds at the time of hearing of an appeal and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” ITA No.329/SRT/2025

SATHAIYA GANAPATHY,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329 & 330/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Sathaiya Ganapathy, Vs. Ito, Ts No.4114, South 3 Rd Street, Ward – 1, Pukukottai, Tamil Nadu - 622001 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahbpg2414Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mayank A. Ogriwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

penalty in the appeal effect order, as the tax impact of the deleted addition of ₹70,50,000/- was not fully considered. Your appellant further reserves his right to add, alter or to amend any of the aforesaid grounds at the time of hearing of an appeal and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” ITA No.329/SRT/2025

M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE CIT-I, BARODA

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation of Rs.28,94,339 on foreign exchange loss arising from reinstatement of creditors for fixed assets. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in not allowing the foreign exchange loss as revenue expenditure despite holding that the same does not form part of the cost of the fixed asset

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation of Rs.28,94,339 on foreign exchange loss arising from reinstatement of creditors for fixed assets. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in not allowing the foreign exchange loss as revenue expenditure despite holding that the same does not form part of the cost of the fixed asset

JAYANTILAL VALLABHBHAI RAMOLIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.342/Srt/2017 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Jayantilal Vallabhbhai Income Tax Officer, Ramoliya, 33-134, Miranagar Ward-3(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Society, Varachha Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No. Abipr 3365 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

penalty imposing under section 269SS disallowance of interest expenses and agriculture income. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) for the Revenue has raised no objection regarding not press of those grounds of assessees appeal. Considering the contention of both the parties, grounds No. 2, 5 & 6 in assessees appeal are dismissed as ‘not pressed’. 2 Jayantilal V Ramoliya

SHRI NEHRUNAGAR CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(5), SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.507/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. ITA.507/SRT/2023/AY.2016-17 Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Society 9. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course

D V PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) D. V. Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit - 1, 748-749, Golden Plaza Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms Chaitali Shah, Ca Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2023

depreciation was a part of Statutory Audit Report and the assesses has disclosed the details in Form No. 3CD attached with the return of income (ROI). The ld Counsel also stated that the assessment order was finalised after perusal of ROI, material available on record and replies filed in response to notice issue u/s 142(1) of the Act. Thus