INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. KAMAL KISHORE SONI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

131 of the income tax Act which was based on incriminating evidences found during the search and seizure, hence reopening of assessment was done on valid reasons, therefore the reassessment proceedings should not be quashed. 11. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. KAMAL KISHORE SONI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

131 of the income tax Act which was based on incriminating evidences found during the search and seizure, hence reopening of assessment was done on valid reasons, therefore the reassessment proceedings should not be quashed. 11. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

KAMAL KISHORE SONI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

131 of the income tax Act which was based on incriminating evidences found during the search and seizure, hence reopening of assessment was done on valid reasons, therefore the reassessment proceedings should not be quashed. 11. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

KAMAL KISHORE SONI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

131 of the income tax Act which was based on incriminating evidences found during the search and seizure, hence reopening of assessment was done on valid reasons, therefore the reassessment proceedings should not be quashed. 11. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

KAMAL KISHORE SONI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.31 & 125/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surt [Pan: Aakps3474Q] Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.32 & 126/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat. [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A Nos.33 & 127/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamal Kishore Soni Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] The Income Tax Officer, Kamal Kishore Soni 311, Tulsi Appartment, 3Rd Floor, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat Vs. Somnath Mahadeo Ni Sheri, Mahidarpura, Surat [Pan: Aakps3474Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

131 of the income tax Act which was based on incriminating evidences found during the search and seizure, hence reopening of assessment was done on valid reasons, therefore the reassessment proceedings should not be quashed. 11. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished

DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT vs. SURAT CT SCAN PVT LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.505/Srt/2019(Ay 2008-09) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Surat Ct Scan Private Ltd., 1St Floor, Yash Plaza Income Tax Officer, Vs Complex, Dhatigara Street, Circle-2(1)(2),Room No. Nanpura, 205, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395001 Majura Gate, Pan No. Aaics 1581 K Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

depreciation of Rs.2,61,180/- in the assessment order dated 31.03.2014. 3. Aggrieved by the reopening as well as additions in the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed its detailed written submission. The submission of assessee is recorded in para-5 of the order

SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

3. Total 1,29,476 On the basis of aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice as to why Rs. 1,48,464/- (Provident Fund of Rs. 18,988 + ESI of Rs. 1,29,476) should not be added to the total income of assessee. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee has not furnished any reply

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

3. Total 1,29,476 On the basis of aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice as to why Rs. 1,48,464/- (Provident Fund of Rs. 18,988 + ESI of Rs. 1,29,476) should not be added to the total income of assessee. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee has not furnished any reply

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

131 Taxman 386. In the said judgment, the contention of the Department predicated on double benefit was turned down in the following manner: A.Y. 2014-15 Shree Saibaba Satsang Mandal "3. As stated above, the first question which requires consideration by this Court is: whether depreciation was allowable on the assets, the cost of which has been fully allowed

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

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

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

3 Jayantilal V Ramoliya the property is at Bhagu Estate (Bhagu), whereas no such property is appearing in the balance-sheet of assessee. For property at Narthan, the assessee stated that by an error different plot no. is mentioned but in actual both the properties are also same. The Assessing Officer took his view that how the assessee would receive

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

depreciation of Rs.26,592/-. In view of such claims the assessee has returned income at Rs.7,88,56,573/- against the income disclosed at Rs.8,20,00,000/- during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act. Therefore, ld PCIT noticed that assessee has claimed this amount of Rs.31,43,427/-( Rs.8,20,00,000- Rs.7

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

depreciation of Rs.26,592/-. In view of such claims the assessee has returned income at Rs.7,88,56,573/- against the income disclosed at Rs.8,20,00,000/- during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act. Therefore, ld PCIT noticed that assessee has claimed this amount of Rs.31,43,427/-( Rs.8,20,00,000- Rs.7

KHEMCHAND KANGUMAL THARWANI,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2867-2869/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shri Rajesh Khemchand Tharwani, Tax, Navsari Circle, Room L/H Lt. Shri Khemchandbhai Vs. No./302, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Kungmal Tharwani, Prop. Of K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Gidc, Charpool Police Chowki, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3135/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Shri Khemchand Kangumal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tharwani, By L/R Rajesh Tax, Navsari Circle, Room No./302, Vs. Khemchand Tharwani, Prop. Of M/S Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Charpool K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Police Chowki, Lunsikui, Gidc, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent)

depreciation. Whether the provision of section 150(1) 10 applicable, if the reply is in the affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated against No. 11 and it may be brought out that the proviso of section 150(2) would not stand in N.A. the way of initiating provisions of section 148. 11. Reasons for the belief that income

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARIVS.SHRI KHEMCHANDBHAI KUNGMAL THARWANI,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2867-2869/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shri Rajesh Khemchand Tharwani, Tax, Navsari Circle, Room L/H Lt. Shri Khemchandbhai Vs. No./302, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Kungmal Tharwani, Prop. Of K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Gidc, Charpool Police Chowki, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3135/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Shri Khemchand Kangumal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tharwani, By L/R Rajesh Tax, Navsari Circle, Room No./302, Vs. Khemchand Tharwani, Prop. Of M/S Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Charpool K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Police Chowki, Lunsikui, Gidc, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent)

depreciation. Whether the provision of section 150(1) 10 applicable, if the reply is in the affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated against No. 11 and it may be brought out that the proviso of section 150(2) would not stand in N.A. the way of initiating provisions of section 148. 11. Reasons for the belief that income

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARIVS.SHRI KHEMCHANDBHAI KUNGMAL THARWANI,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2867-2869/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shri Rajesh Khemchand Tharwani, Tax, Navsari Circle, Room L/H Lt. Shri Khemchandbhai Vs. No./302, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Kungmal Tharwani, Prop. Of K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Gidc, Charpool Police Chowki, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3135/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Shri Khemchand Kangumal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tharwani, By L/R Rajesh Tax, Navsari Circle, Room No./302, Vs. Khemchand Tharwani, Prop. Of M/S Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Charpool K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Police Chowki, Lunsikui, Gidc, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent)

depreciation. Whether the provision of section 150(1) 10 applicable, if the reply is in the affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated against No. 11 and it may be brought out that the proviso of section 150(2) would not stand in N.A. the way of initiating provisions of section 148. 11. Reasons for the belief that income

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARIVS.SHRI KHEMCHANDBHAI KUNGMAL THARWANI,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2867-2869/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shri Rajesh Khemchand Tharwani, Tax, Navsari Circle, Room L/H Lt. Shri Khemchandbhai Vs. No./302, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Kungmal Tharwani, Prop. Of K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Gidc, Charpool Police Chowki, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3135/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Shri Khemchand Kangumal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tharwani, By L/R Rajesh Tax, Navsari Circle, Room No./302, Vs. Khemchand Tharwani, Prop. Of M/S Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Charpool K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Police Chowki, Lunsikui, Gidc, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent)

depreciation. Whether the provision of section 150(1) 10 applicable, if the reply is in the affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated against No. 11 and it may be brought out that the proviso of section 150(2) would not stand in N.A. the way of initiating provisions of section 148. 11. Reasons for the belief that income

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