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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,.,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, , NAVSARI

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

section 41(1) of the Act. It is covered by the head "income from other sources". Thus, after allowing inter-head adjustments u/s. 71 of the Act, the remaining income of Rs.329,46 lacs ITA.38/SRT/2017/AY.2006-07 Shangrila Latex Industries Pvt. Ltd. is required to be added to the total income of your company and set off of brought forward business loss

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)

section 143(3) rule 5 & Appendix-I. According to Assessing Officer, as per BMV (Bombay Motor Vehicle) Act, as applicable to Gujarat also. Crane owner has two options to pay RTO tax which are: (i) one time lump sum tax @ 12% of cost price (ii) Recuring annual tax @ 200 + Rs.400/- per every 1000 kgs or part thereof exceeding

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. The Assessing Officer also held that the assessee was not having any agreement with the State/Central Govt., local government or statutory body. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act makes it evident that where in the case of any proceedings under the Act, the AO is satisfied that any person had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penal provisions are attracted. Both the expressions “has concealed” and “has furnished inaccurate particulars” have not been defined in the Act. The net effect of both

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