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

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, SURAT vs. THE THE SURAT PEOPLES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2573/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 Assistant Vs The Surat Peoples Co-Operative Commissioner Of . Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Circle- Vashudhara Bhavan, Timaliyawad, 5, Surat. Nanpura, Surat – 395001. [Pan: Aaaat 2885 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.1726/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Deputy Vs The Surat Peoples Co-Operative . Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Circle- Vashudhara Bhavan, Timaliyawad, 2(2), Surat. Nanpura, Surat – 395001. [Pan: Aaaat 2885 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Kamlesh Bhatt – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Mayank Pandey – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 03.10.2019

36 (1) (vii) of the Act and these provisions have been explained by the CBDT vide Instruction No. 17 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008. As per this clarification, investment of banks clarified under HTM category need not be marked to market and are carried at cost unless these are more than face value, in which case, the premium should be amortized

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, SURAT vs. THE SURAT PEOPLES CO.OP.BANK LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2573/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 Assistant Vs The Surat Peoples Co-Operative Commissioner Of . Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Circle- Vashudhara Bhavan, Timaliyawad, 5, Surat. Nanpura, Surat – 395001. [Pan: Aaaat 2885 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.1726/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Deputy Vs The Surat Peoples Co-Operative . Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Circle- Vashudhara Bhavan, Timaliyawad, 2(2), Surat. Nanpura, Surat – 395001. [Pan: Aaaat 2885 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Kamlesh Bhatt – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Mayank Pandey – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 03.10.2019

36 (1) (vii) of the Act and these provisions have been explained by the CBDT vide Instruction No. 17 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008. As per this clarification, investment of banks clarified under HTM category need not be marked to market and are carried at cost unless these are more than face value, in which case, the premium should be amortized

M/S. SHANGRILA LATEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Shangrila Latex Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Circle-4, C/O. B.M. Parekh & Co., 203, 2Nd Surat. Floor, Navjivan Society, Bldg. No. 03, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaics1479E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjay S. Kapadia, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2022 28/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

vii. Also in our opinion that the said remission is covered by the provisions of section 41(1) and not covered by the provision of section 56 as this is a remission and not an income. viii. Irrespectively, it is a well-established point of law that remission of loan is not chargeable to tax as clearly stated

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

36(1)(va) if paid by the due date prescribed under those Acts, accordingly disallowed Rs. 1,48,464/-. 9. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. The submission on all three additions is recorded in para

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

36(1)(va) if paid by the due date prescribed under those Acts, accordingly disallowed Rs. 1,48,464/-. 9. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. The submission on all three additions is recorded in para

BHARUCH DISTRICT CO OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,BHARUCH vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) The Bharuch District Co Op Milk A.C.I.T. Producers Union Limited, Circle-1, Vs. Old N.H. 8, Bholav, Bharuch. Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aaaat 1470 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

36(1)(va) of the Act, the assessee stated that all payments were deposited before filing return of income. In a number of cases, it has been held that if such payment is made before due date of filing return of income, no disallowance is required to be made. 3 The Bharuch District Co.Op Milk Producers Union Ltd Vs ACIT

THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VAPI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

depreciation @ 80%. During the period relevant to the AY 2008-09, Suman Paper & Board and NR Paper & Board, the group companies of the assessee were amalgamated with the assessee and become third power plant (Unit-III). A search action under 3 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 section 132 of Income

N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

depreciation @ 80%. During the period relevant to the AY 2008-09, Suman Paper & Board and NR Paper & Board, the group companies of the assessee were amalgamated with the assessee and become third power plant (Unit-III). A search action under 3 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 section 132 of Income

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 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

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

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

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