ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.2(1)(1), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD., SURAT

In the result, ground No.1& 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Assistant Commissioner The Surat District Co- Of Income Tax, Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Circle-2(1)(1), 1, Kanpith, Lalgate, Surat. Surat-395003 Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

depreciation fund is also provision to cover the value of stock-in-trade which is also contingent in nature. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after examining the statutory provision and held that assessee has a rural advance of Rs.159 Crore (rounded) against which the assessee has claimed only Rs.7.16 crores though they are entitled to claim

THE ASSTT. CIT., CIRCLE - 2(2),, SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

depreciation fund is also provision to cover the value of stock-in-trade which is also contingent in nature. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after examining the statutory provision and held that assessee has a rural advance of Rs.159 Crore (rounded) against which the assessee has claimed only Rs.7.16 crores though they are entitled to claim

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

depreciation fund is also provision to cover the value of stock-in-trade which is also contingent in nature. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after examining the statutory provision and held that assessee has a rural advance of Rs.159 Crore (rounded) against which the assessee has claimed only Rs.7.16 crores though they are entitled to claim

THE ASSTT. CIT., CIRCLE - 2(2),, SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

depreciation fund is also provision to cover the value of stock-in-trade which is also contingent in nature. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after examining the statutory provision and held that assessee has a rural advance of Rs.159 Crore (rounded) against which the assessee has claimed only Rs.7.16 crores though they are entitled to claim

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

36(1)(viia) to the extent of 7.500 crores. 16. We have heard the submissions of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax/ departmental representative (CIT-DR) for the 24 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 revenue and the learned authorised representative (ld AR) for the assessee and have gone through the orders

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

36(1)(viia) to the extent of 7.500 crores. 16. We have heard the submissions of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax/ departmental representative (CIT-DR) for the 24 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 revenue and the learned authorised representative (ld AR) for the assessee and have gone through the orders

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

36(1)(viia) to the extent of 7.500 crores. 16. We have heard the submissions of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax/ departmental representative (CIT-DR) for the 24 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 revenue and the learned authorised representative (ld AR) for the assessee and have gone through the orders

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

36(1)(viia) to the extent of 7.500 crores. 16. We have heard the submissions of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax/ departmental representative (CIT-DR) for the 24 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 revenue and the learned authorised representative (ld AR) for the assessee and have gone through the orders

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

36(1)(viia) to the extent of 7.500 crores. 16. We have heard the submissions of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax/ departmental representative (CIT-DR) for the 24 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 revenue and the learned authorised representative (ld AR) for the assessee and have gone through the orders

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

36(1)(viia) to the extent of 7.500 crores. 16. We have heard the submissions of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax/ departmental representative (CIT-DR) for the 24 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 revenue and the learned authorised representative (ld AR) for the assessee and have gone through the orders

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

36(1)(viia) to the extent of 7.500 crores. 16. We have heard the submissions of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax/ departmental representative (CIT-DR) for the 24 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 revenue and the learned authorised representative (ld AR) for the assessee and have gone through the orders

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

36(1)(viia) to the extent of 7.500 crores. 16. We have heard the submissions of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax/ departmental representative (CIT-DR) for the 24 Bharuch Dist. Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. AYs 12-13, 14-15, 09-10-11-12 revenue and the learned authorised representative (ld AR) for the assessee and have gone through the orders

SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

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

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

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

HOTEL MIRAMAR,DAMAN vs. ASSISTNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.129/Srt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hotel Miramar, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Devka Beach, Nani Daman, Vapi. Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (U.T). (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfh5561Q Assessee By Shri Kaushani Shah Proxy Ca For Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short ‘The Nfac’], Delhi, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer, Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 15.04.2019. 2. At The Outset, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Fairly Agreed That The Issue In This Appeal Pertains To Employees’ Contribution To Provident Fund & Esic, Which Is Squarely Covered Against The Assessee By The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., In Civil Application No.2833 Of 2016, Dated 12.10.2022. 3. On The Other Hand, The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. Dr) For The Revenue Also Agreed That The Present Assessee’S Appeal Is Covered Against The Ita 129/Srt/2021/Ay.2017-18 Hotel Miramar

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