SHRI DHARMENDRA HIRUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLURU, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.139/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Dharmendra Hirubhai Patel, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, Motawada Steet, At & Po. Hazira, Bangluru. Tal: Choryasi, Surat – 394270. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amhpp6575A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deven Kapadia, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/01/2023 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

BHAVNA ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Bhavna Enterprise, Vs. The Adit, 30, Ambika Nagar Society, Cpc, Bengaluru Hazira Road, Ichchhapore, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer: Surat - 394510 The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfb5274K (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

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)

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

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)

36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were

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

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

section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act, that\nthe cane price was duly approved by the competent State Government\nauthority, that the lower authorities misapplied the statute and ignored\nCBDT Circular No. 18/2021 dated 25.10.2021, that the principle of\nconsistency has been violated, and that the set-off of brought-forward\nunabsorbed depreciation

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

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

section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act, that\nthe cane price was duly approved by the competent State Government\nauthority, that the lower authorities misapplied the statute and ignored\nCBDT Circular No. 18/2021 dated 25.10.2021, that the principle of\nconsistency has been violated, and that the set-off of brought-forward\nunabsorbed depreciation

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

section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act, that\nthe cane price was duly approved by the competent State Government\nauthority, that the lower authorities misapplied the statute and ignored\nCBDT Circular No. 18/2021 dated 25.10.2021, that the principle of\nconsistency has been violated, and that the set-off of brought-forward\nunabsorbed depreciation

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

section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act, that\nthe cane price was duly approved by the competent State Government\nauthority, that the lower authorities misapplied the statute and ignored\nCBDT Circular No. 18/2021 dated 25.10.2021, that the principle of\nconsistency has been violated, and that the set-off of brought-forward\nunabsorbed depreciation

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

section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act, that\nthe cane price was duly approved by the competent State Government\nauthority, that the lower authorities misapplied the statute and ignored\nCBDT Circular No. 18/2021 dated 25.10.2021, that the principle of\nconsistency has been violated, and that the set-off of brought-forward\nunabsorbed depreciation

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

section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act, that\nthe cane price was duly approved by the competent State Government\nauthority, that the lower authorities misapplied the statute and ignored\nCBDT Circular No. 18/2021 dated 25.10.2021, that the principle of\nconsistency has been violated, and that the set-off of brought-forward\nunabsorbed depreciation

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

section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act, that\nthe cane price was duly approved by the competent State Government\nauthority, that the lower authorities misapplied the statute and ignored\nCBDT Circular No. 18/2021 dated 25.10.2021, that the principle of\nconsistency has been violated, and that the set-off of brought-forward\nunabsorbed depreciation

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

section 36(1)(xvii) of the Act, that\nthe cane price was duly approved by the competent State Government\nauthority, that the lower authorities misapplied the statute and ignored\nCBDT Circular No. 18/2021 dated 25.10.2021, that the principle of\nconsistency has been violated, and that the set-off of brought-forward\nunabsorbed depreciation

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) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 28.08.2018. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. Learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @ 30% on machineries instead