THE DY,CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, SURAT vs. M/S. NAKODA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed

depreciation and the balance amount i.e. Rs.6,10,02,257/- was towards unabsorbed business loss. It is seen that the profit or loss in the case of corporate 6.2 assessee is to be computed as per Part 2 & 3 of Schedule VI of Companies Act, 1956,. It has also been contended that there are specific ingredients like dividend, bonus, shares

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)

depreciable asset used for the purpose of business. Therefore, to say that the gain on sale of business asset is taxable under the head "business income" is contrary to provisions of section 50 and if accepted, it would render section 50 nugatory. h. The AO's contention that there is no connection between asset becoming sterile and capital gain. This

M/S. JAY KESAR BHAVANI DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ITOI,WD.1(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1196/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Jay Kesar Bhavani V. Income Tax Officer, Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(3) Surat A-48,Kesar Kunj, Shri Bhulabhai Desai Marg, Laxmikant Ashram Road Katargam Surat 395004 Pan:Aabcj 6278 P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. Ground No. 1 to 3: relating to disallowance deduction of Rs. 5,02,25,387 u/s. 80IB(10) are not pressed before us, by the Learned Counsel on the ground that the original return of income was not filed within statutory period for eligible to make claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, ex-consequenti, these

SHILPRAJ DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,,SURAT vs. A.C.I.T, , CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2608/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Circle- 4, Vs. 12, Suryakiran Apartment, Ghod-Dod Surat. Road, Surat-395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs3045H (Assessee) (Respondent)

2. In ground No.1 the main grievance of the assessee is that undisclosed income of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- which was disclosed as per seized diary during survey action under section 133A of the Act should be treated under the head ‘business income’ instead of under the head ‘other sources’. In ground no.2, the assessee states that if income

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

2 Jayantilal V Ramoliya 3. Brief facts related to additions involved in ground Nos.1, 3, 4 & 7 are that during the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has shown unsecured loan of Rs.34,12,720/- from various persons. On seeking explanation for the said loan from various persons, the assessee took a plea that Rs.22

KIRTIPRADA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,54,43,572 3,42,27,572 2012-13 10,37,30,711 3,92,99,934 5,14,00,934 In view of rising turnover and profitability, charging of share premium @ Rs. 40 per share cannot at all be regarded as excessive. It is also pertinent to mention here that with increase in turnover of assessee also

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J B SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.140/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2023

Depreciation 2010-11 62,22,056 2011-12 12,13,67,287 1,00,06,500 2012-13 29,25,48,780 4,55,72,185 2013-14 33,37,86,000 4,25,83,805 2014-15 41,40,36,758 4,51,91,770 The ld CIT(A) noted that however, for present appeal this is not relevant