ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

23. On appeal against the finding of AO in treating the undertaking as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA, the assessee filed detailed written submissions as recorded in para 5.2 of order of CIT(A). We find that in the written submissions the assessee retreated similar submissions as submitted before assessing officer and also relied on certain case laws

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

23. On appeal against the finding of AO in treating the undertaking as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA, the assessee filed detailed written submissions as recorded in para 5.2 of order of CIT(A). We find that in the written submissions the assessee retreated similar submissions as submitted before assessing officer and also relied on certain case laws

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

23. On appeal against the finding of AO in treating the undertaking as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA, the assessee filed detailed written submissions as recorded in para 5.2 of order of CIT(A). We find that in the written submissions the assessee retreated similar submissions as submitted before assessing officer and also relied on certain case laws

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

23. On appeal against the finding of AO in treating the undertaking as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA, the assessee filed detailed written submissions as recorded in para 5.2 of order of CIT(A). We find that in the written submissions the assessee retreated similar submissions as submitted before assessing officer and also relied on certain case laws

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

23. On appeal against the finding of AO in treating the undertaking as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA, the assessee filed detailed written submissions as recorded in para 5.2 of order of CIT(A). We find that in the written submissions the assessee retreated similar submissions as submitted before assessing officer and also relied on certain case laws

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

23. On appeal against the finding of AO in treating the undertaking as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA, the assessee filed detailed written submissions as recorded in para 5.2 of order of CIT(A). We find that in the written submissions the assessee retreated similar submissions as submitted before assessing officer and also relied on certain case laws

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

23. On appeal against the finding of AO in treating the undertaking as not eligible for deduction under section 80IA, the assessee filed detailed written submissions as recorded in para 5.2 of order of CIT(A). We find that in the written submissions the assessee retreated similar submissions as submitted before assessing officer and also relied on certain case laws

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’).

10. We note that assessee trust has claimed depreciation to the tune of Rs.20,63,925/-by mistake and accepted the mistake during assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings. We note that assessee has claimed said depreciation under bona-fide belief that the same is allowable deduction under the Act. However, we note that Finance Act, 2014 amended the provisions

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.

c) Being aggrieved with the order of the CIT (A) the revenue carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals). It found the respondent's claim was based on aggregation of sales of valves to AE's and compared it with aggregation of sales to non A.E.. It found that

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S J.K. Paper Ltd. Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mill, Vs. Surat. Fort Songadh, Surat. Pan : Aaact 6305 N Appellant Respondednt

10,36,47,628/- ITA 181/SRT/2020 DCIT Vs J K Paper Ltd. wrongly treated as capital receipt. 18. Disallowance section 40(a)(i) of the I.T. Act. Rs. 83,00,000/-. 3. The assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the ld. CIT(A) allowed substantial

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

Section 147 (first proviso). It is not a proviso to proviso in other words. Learned Departmental Representative further fails to dispute that the question whether or not a port terminals Jetty / Trestle is to be treated as plant and machinery is no more res integra since this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision in Kandla Port Trust case

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

Section 147 (first proviso). It is not a proviso to proviso in other words. Learned Departmental Representative further fails to dispute that the question whether or not a port terminals Jetty / Trestle is to be treated as plant and machinery is no more res integra since this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision in Kandla Port Trust case

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

C. Ag It Vs. Kerala Estate Mooriad Chalapuram (1986) 161 ITR 155 (SC) that the amount remitted under a settlement even including interest would not have the character of income being capital receipt. The copy of the said decision is enclosed herewith for your ready reference and records. Since the Supreme Court has endorsed the view, we request your good

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

depreciation of Rs.504,537/-. 23. The case of the assessee was re-opened under section 147 on 28.03.2012. Notice under section 148 was served upon assessee on 30.03.2012. The case of assessee was re-opened by Assessing Officer while finalizing assessment for AY 2010-11 by taking view that assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

depreciation of Rs.504,537/-. 23. The case of the assessee was re-opened under section 147 on 28.03.2012. Notice under section 148 was served upon assessee on 30.03.2012. The case of assessee was re-opened by Assessing Officer while finalizing assessment for AY 2010-11 by taking view that assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

depreciation of Rs.504,537/-. 23. The case of the assessee was re-opened under section 147 on 28.03.2012. Notice under section 148 was served upon assessee on 30.03.2012. The case of assessee was re-opened by Assessing Officer while finalizing assessment for AY 2010-11 by taking view that assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA

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

c) of Banking Regulation Act, which is not a scheduled bank is classified as Non-scheduled bank and it was held by Tribunal that consequently a cooperative bank would be classified as non-scheduled bank for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viia), 22 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 thus, cooperative

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

c) of Banking Regulation Act, which is not a scheduled bank is classified as Non-scheduled bank and it was held by Tribunal that consequently a cooperative bank would be classified as non-scheduled bank for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viia), 22 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 thus, cooperative