SHREE CHALTHAN VIBHAG KHAND SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kambleshree Chalthan Vibhag Khand Income Tax Officer, Vs. Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Ward-1, At. & Po. Chalthan, Bardoli. Tal.Palsana, Surat-394305. [Pan : Aaaac0477A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akshay M Modi, Ar Respondent By: Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026 O R D E R

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), relating to the Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi has erred in confirming the order passed by the ITO, Ward

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

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 20.03.2024, by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Valsad [in short ‘PCIT’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad, has grossly erred in law as well

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG, KAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD., NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

144B(8) of the Act is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and hence, liable to be annulled or nullified in toto. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

SAHAKARI KHAND UDUOG MANDAL LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

144B(8) of the Act is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and hence, liable to be annulled or nullified in toto. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE., NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,, NAVASARI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

144B(8) of the Act is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and hence, liable to be annulled or nullified in toto. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

SAHADARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

144B(8) of the Act is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and hence, liable to be annulled or nullified in toto. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

144B(8) of the Act is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and hence, liable to be annulled or nullified in toto. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

144B(8) of the Act is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law and hence, liable to be annulled or nullified in toto. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, the CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

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

144B of the Act, determining total income of the assessee at Rs.1,76,39,323/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). During appellate proceedings, CIT(A) observed that investment in immovable property was funded by a housing loan from HDFC Bank, therefore, directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.70

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

144B of the Act, determining total income of the assessee at Rs.1,76,39,323/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). During appellate proceedings, CIT(A) observed that investment in immovable property was funded by a housing loan from HDFC Bank, therefore, directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.70