M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

depreciation and, accordingly, requested the Tribunal to allow it to withdraw the appeal which was granted. Subsequent to receipt of the order of the Tribunal on 07.12.1972, the assessee filed a revision application on 26.12.1972 praying that it should be allowed to treat the amount of x 3,00,600/- as revenue expenditure for A.Y. 1965-66 along with

M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

depreciation and, accordingly, requested the Tribunal to allow it to withdraw the appeal which was granted. Subsequent to receipt of the order of the Tribunal on 07.12.1972, the assessee filed a revision application on 26.12.1972 praying that it should be allowed to treat the amount of x 3,00,600/- as revenue expenditure for A.Y. 1965-66 along with

M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

depreciation and, accordingly, requested the Tribunal to allow it to withdraw the appeal which was granted. Subsequent to receipt of the order of the Tribunal on 07.12.1972, the assessee filed a revision application on 26.12.1972 praying that it should be allowed to treat the amount of x 3,00,600/- as revenue expenditure for A.Y. 1965-66 along with

M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

depreciation and, accordingly, requested the Tribunal to allow it to withdraw the appeal which was granted. Subsequent to receipt of the order of the Tribunal on 07.12.1972, the assessee filed a revision application on 26.12.1972 praying that it should be allowed to treat the amount of x 3,00,600/- as revenue expenditure for A.Y. 1965-66 along with

M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

depreciation and, accordingly, requested the Tribunal to allow it to withdraw the appeal which was granted. Subsequent to receipt of the order of the Tribunal on 07.12.1972, the assessee filed a revision application on 26.12.1972 praying that it should be allowed to treat the amount of x 3,00,600/- as revenue expenditure for A.Y. 1965-66 along with

M/S. BAYER VAPI PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,),VAPI vs. THE ADDL.CIT., VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2912/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम M/S. Bayer Vapi Private Limited) Addl. Cit Range- (Formerly M/S. Bilag Industries Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Pvt. Ltd.), 306/3,Phase-Ii, Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat. National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation on intangible assets ns marketing rights as claimed by the assessee. In view of these facts and circumstances, the grounds of appeal no. 16 to 19 of the appeal are, therefore, allowed.” 8. In view of the above, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assesse by order of this bench as mentioned above, which

M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL COMPANY LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

depreciation in violation of section 43A of the Act which was not found to be sustainable during quantum proceedings. In our humble understanding, such a claim of assessee is clearly a act 7 ITA No’s.2658 to 2660/Ahd/2014/SRT (A.Y’s: 2006-07 to 2008-09) Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co.Ltd. furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which attracts penalty u/s.271

M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL COMPANY LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

depreciation in violation of section 43A of the Act which was not found to be sustainable during quantum proceedings. In our humble understanding, such a claim of assessee is clearly a act 7 ITA No’s.2658 to 2660/Ahd/2014/SRT (A.Y’s: 2006-07 to 2008-09) Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co.Ltd. furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which attracts penalty u/s.271

M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL COMPANY LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

depreciation in violation of section 43A of the Act which was not found to be sustainable during quantum proceedings. In our humble understanding, such a claim of assessee is clearly a act 7 ITA No’s.2658 to 2660/Ahd/2014/SRT (A.Y’s: 2006-07 to 2008-09) Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co.Ltd. furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which attracts penalty u/s.271

S J P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 to 3 of the appeal are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.430/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) S J P Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of E-3300, Radhakrishna Textile Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2) Vs Market, Ring Road, Surat- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, 395002 Income Tax Colony, Pan No. Aajcs 4313 C Athwa, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

5. We find that before Tribunal assessee has challenged the action of Ld.CIT(A) in passing ex parte order, addition/disallowance of depreciation and interest expenses. Surprisingly, the assessee has also raised grounds of appeal against the disallowance under section 14A without challenging such disallowance before First Appellate Authority/ CIT(A). The assessee has neither filed any application for seeking permission

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

depreciation. (xiii) The AO rejected the appellant's contention of commission payments proof, TDS deducted on the same by referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxminarayan Madanlal Vs CIT 86 ITR 439 wherein it was held that mere existence of an agreement between the assessee and its selling agents or payment of commission

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

depreciation. (xiii) The AO rejected the appellant's contention of commission payments proof, TDS deducted on the same by referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxminarayan Madanlal Vs CIT 86 ITR 439 wherein it was held that mere existence of an agreement between the assessee and its selling agents or payment of commission

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

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

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.5.863 crores on account of diminution of Government Securities. The assessee in the note attached with the computation of income, claimed such deduction on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.5.863 crores on account of diminution of Government Securities. The assessee in the note attached with the computation of income, claimed such deduction on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.5.863 crores on account of diminution of Government Securities. The assessee in the note attached with the computation of income, claimed such deduction on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.5.863 crores on account of diminution of Government Securities. The assessee in the note attached with the computation of income, claimed such deduction on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the computation of income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.5.863 crores on account of diminution of Government Securities. The assessee in the note attached with the computation of income, claimed such deduction on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank