THE ASSTT. CIT., CIRCLE - 2(2),, SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

depreciation fund is also provision to cover the value of stock-in-trade which is also contingent in nature. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after examining the statutory provision and held that assessee has a rural advance of Rs.159 Crore (rounded) against which the assessee has claimed only Rs.7.16 crores though they are entitled to claim

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.2(1)(1), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD., SURAT

In the result, ground No.1& 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Assistant Commissioner The Surat District Co- Of Income Tax, Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Circle-2(1)(1), 1, Kanpith, Lalgate, Surat. Surat-395003 Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

depreciation fund is also provision to cover the value of stock-in-trade which is also contingent in nature. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after examining the statutory provision and held that assessee has a rural advance of Rs.159 Crore (rounded) against which the assessee has claimed only Rs.7.16 crores though they are entitled to claim

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

depreciation fund is also provision to cover the value of stock-in-trade which is also contingent in nature. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after examining the statutory provision and held that assessee has a rural advance of Rs.159 Crore (rounded) against which the assessee has claimed only Rs.7.16 crores though they are entitled to claim

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

depreciation fund is also provision to cover the value of stock-in-trade which is also contingent in nature. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after examining the statutory provision and held that assessee has a rural advance of Rs.159 Crore (rounded) against which the assessee has claimed only Rs.7.16 crores though they are entitled to claim

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2)The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the amount of depreciation ofRs.28,46,631/-which amount to double deduction as 100% of deduction was allowed to the assessee as application of income. 3) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the interest income of Rs.23

N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

depreciation @ 80%. During the period relevant to the AY 2008-09, Suman Paper & Board and NR Paper & Board, the group companies of the assessee were amalgamated with the assessee and become third power plant (Unit-III). A search action under 3 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 section 132 of Income

THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VAPI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

depreciation @ 80%. During the period relevant to the AY 2008-09, Suman Paper & Board and NR Paper & Board, the group companies of the assessee were amalgamated with the assessee and become third power plant (Unit-III). A search action under 3 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 section 132 of Income

SHIVAM DEVELOPERS,GODADRA vs. ITO, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.76/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Shivam Developers, Vs. The Pr. Cit-2, 141, Khodiyar Residency, Surat. Godadra, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acffs4002D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2022

119 (Guj.) wherein it was held as follows: “2. The controversy relates to block period commencing from asst. yr. 1986-87 and ending on 6th Jan., 1996. The respondent assessee, a limited company, claimed deduction under ss. 80-I or 80-IA of the Act in relation to the total undisclosed income of the block period. The said claim

M/S. SAMRIDDHI CORPORATION,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-1(2),, SURAT

In the result, cross appeals of Revenue as well as Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Samruddhi Corporation, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Megh Dhwani Complex, Income Tax, Circle-1(2), City Light Road, Surat – 395007. Surat. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Samruddhi Corporation, Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat. Megh Dhwani Complex, City Light Road, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2)/142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the same the Authorised Representative appeared and filed the details. 6. During the year under consideration is engaged in the business of construction of commercial premises and lands selling. The books of accounts were called for and the same were examined

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. SAMRUDDHI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, cross appeals of Revenue as well as Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Samruddhi Corporation, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Megh Dhwani Complex, Income Tax, Circle-1(2), City Light Road, Surat – 395007. Surat. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Samruddhi Corporation, Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat. Megh Dhwani Complex, City Light Road, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Aaofm 5334 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2)/142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the same the Authorised Representative appeared and filed the details. 6. During the year under consideration is engaged in the business of construction of commercial premises and lands selling. The books of accounts were called for and the same were examined

SAMIR YOGENDRABHAI PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

2. 0 244 10/11/2016 1,22,000 3. 0 21 11/11/2016 10,500 4. 1900 0 25/11/2016 19,00,000 5. Total 22,62,500 The Assessing Officer after making the above summery, called the details of source of such cash deposit during demonetization period, by issuing show cause notice. The assessee in response to such show cause notice, submitted

SHRI PRAKASHBHAI PRAHLADBHAI GAMI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3129/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Prakashbhai Prahladbhai Gami, The Income Tax Officer, Gangakrupa Building, Ward-2(3)(3), Surat. B/H. Ramdev Complex, Pune Vs Village, Dist. Surat. [Pan: Adspp 6520 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish J Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 04.06.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)” Dated 07.09.2016 For A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The C.I.T.(Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Of Addition Of Rs.4,20,000/- To The Returned Income Of The Appellant Under The Head ‘Income From House Property’ By Estimating Notional Rent Of Rs.6,00,000/- In Respect Of Property Situated At Mumbai Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Properly. 2. The C.I.T(Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining Adhoc Disallowance Of Cash Expenditure To The Extent Of 10% I.E. Rs.5,07,680/- Out Of Total Expenditure Of Rs.50,76,800/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Net Profit Ratio Of The Appellant Is Improved In The Year Under Consideration. 3. The C.I.T(Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.86,318/- Being Depreciation On Two Motor Cars Held By The Appellant On The Allegation Of Personal Use.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is allegedly engaged in the business of cutting and polishing of diamond on job work basis. The assessee filed his return of income on 27.09.2013 for assessment year (AY) under consideration declaring income of Rs.14,39,800/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessment was finalized on 08.03.2016 under section