PRAGATI GLASS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. FORMER NAME PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD.,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIR.1, , BARODA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pragati Glass & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, Kharach, Kosamba (R.S), Bharuch. District. Bharuch, Bharuch -392001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcp7377H

depreciation as applicable in the case of plant & machinery. The findings of the assessing officer is reproduced below: “5.2.1 The submission of the assesses is duly considered but found not acceptable on account of the discrepancies noticed as follows: 1. It is submitted by the assessee that the moulds are made up of cast iron material based containers in which

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

KALUBHAI DULABHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , SURAT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

200 and Vinodkumar vs. Additional CIT reported at 91 TTJ 460.” 6. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that intention of the assessee was to enter into trade of purchase and sale of land, therefore, the long term capital gain worked out by the assessee in computing his total income and deduction claimed

GUJARAT MITRA PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32 & 33/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Mitra Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Ward No.10, Soni Faliya, Chowk Centralized Processing Center, Vs. Bazar, Surat-395003 Bangalore-560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 2528 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

200 6,768 24.06.2017 Jun-17 1,28,690 6,690 26.07.2017 Jul-17 1,27,828 6,645 06.10.2017

GUJARAT MITRA PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32 & 33/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Mitra Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Ward No.10, Soni Faliya, Chowk Centralized Processing Center, Vs. Bazar, Surat-395003 Bangalore-560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 2528 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

200 6,768 24.06.2017 Jun-17 1,28,690 6,690 26.07.2017 Jul-17 1,27,828 6,645 06.10.2017

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

Section 143(3) after making addition of Rs. 1,03,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit. The assessee made deposit during demonetization period of Rs. 33,88,800/- which includes deposit of Rs. 22,62,500/-. The ld. Pr.CIT further recorded that it was imperative on the part of Assessing Officer to verify if the accounting of receipt

CUBE CONSTRUCTIONS ENGINEERING LTD.,VADODARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Cube Constructions Engineering The Pr.Cit, Limited, (Central), Vs. 1, Chandamani Nagar, Vidhya Surat. Vihar, Subhanpura, Vadodara, 390020. Pan No. Aaccc 8103 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

200/-. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the mater went to CIT(Appeals). Presently the assessee company is in appeal with respect to the additions on account of donation made to scientific research institute and disallowance of depreciation. Cube Constructions Engineering Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT The Principal officer observed that the assessee company had not credited

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

depreciation, while Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate adjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative question of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business expenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to 14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

DINESHBHAI JIVANBHAI SANSPARA,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara The Principal Commissioner Of Income 1117,F-Tower, Green Avenue, Tax-1, Room No.123, Aayakar Vs. Union Park Gali Ghod Dod Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adaps 6038 H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

200 2,62,692 … .. 701 90,50,000 … … 1,69,00,000 13,12,408 54,35,981 17,81,713 In short, the assessee has received sale consideration in piecemeal (as mentioned above in tabular format) and has constructed the residential property accordingly. Therefore, claim u/s 54 is admissible. In letter dated 11.12.15 section 54F written through oversight which

M/S NILKANTH STONE INDUSTRIES, VALSAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result the 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.386/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Shop No.A-1/2/3, Nilkanth Of Income Tax, Valsad. Residency, B/H Old Jakarta Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad. [Pan: Aajfn 5653 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Surji Chheda - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 27.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) Dated 27.03.2018, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Vide His Application Dated 16.08.2018 Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Has Erred In Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Which Was Without Jurisdiction & The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On All Issues Discussed In Revision Order & Has Erred In Setting It Aside For Fresh

depreciation to held that the ITO has not examined the proof of the machinery having been purchased, installed and put to use by the appellant during the year. 7. The learned CIT has erred to treat the orders as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue issue of sundry creditors generally without specifying circumstances of each party and to hold that

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

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 14A of the Act at Rs. 13,32,300/- and MAT Credit entitlement of Rs. 6,36,89,244/-. 5. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee was given substantial relief to the assessee. The addition made by the AO and on appeal deleting/restricting the various additions are summarized in the following chart: Sr. Nature Addition