M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD.),VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.2886/Ahd/2010, 794/Ahd/2014 & 1769/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 बनाम M/S. Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Addl. Cit Range- ( Now Known As M/S. Bayer Vapi Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Private Limited) 306/3,Phase-Ii Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyer - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O. P. Singh Cit (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 26.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Three Appeals For The Assessment Year 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Dated 28.07.2010 & Dated 15.01.2014 Respectively Under The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] On The Direction Of Drp By The Addl. Cit Range-Vapi Range Vapi (Herein After Referred As The Ao) & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Dated 29.04.2016. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed As Under: It(Tp)A No.2886/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 2006-07/ By The Assessee: 2. Ground Nos.1 Is General In Nature & Do Not Require Adjudication.

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.” 40. In view of the above, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of this bench as mentioned above, which

V.A. ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.2434/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Va Advisory Services Pvt. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. 10Th Floor, Vishwakarma Arcade, Majura Gate, Surat – 395 002. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Urvashi Shodam – Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Dileep Kumar – Sr.Dr 12.10.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Surat(In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 11.05.2015 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat(In Short

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act,1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Ground No.1 to 5 relates to confirming of disallowance made by the AO of Rs.20,65,250/- being depreciation claimed on goodwill u/s.32(1)(2) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in investment of banking

SHRI BHARATKUMAR T. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, Ground No.1 of appeal is allowed

section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on estimation. The observations of the Coordinate Bench are as follows: “11. We have noted that the assessee while filing return of income for assessment year 1988-89 on 20.06.1988 declared loss in the form unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.22,48

RAJVI CORPORATION,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. Rajvi Corporation, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(2)(2), D-3, Om Final Plot No. 108, Bombay Surat. Food Compound Kasanagar Road, Nr. Idbi Bank Katargam, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofr0631E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ronak Parekh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A),-3/10473/2016-17 Dated 19.07.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

depreciation of Rs.22,48,941/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 29.05.1992. The assessing officer while passing

GIPILON TEXTURISING PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),, SURAT

In the result, Ground No.1 of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.293 & 294/Ahd/2005 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1988-89 & 1989-90 Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 10-C, Brijkutir Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(2), Surat. Nr.Nidhi Complex, Parle Point, Op.Umrigar School, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Abepp 6880 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2141 & 2142/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1988-89 & 1989-90 Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 10-C, Brijkutir Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(2), Surat. Nr.Nidhi Complex, Parle Point, Op.Umrigar School, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Abepp 6880 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Shah – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Usha Shrote – Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. These Four Appeals By Assessee, Out Of Which First Two Appeals (Ita (S) No. 294 & 294/Ahd/2005 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 08.12.2004, Which In Turn Arise Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) For A.Y. 1988-89 & 1989-90. Other

depreciation of Rs.22,48,941/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 29.05.1992. The assessing officer while passing

GIPILON TEXTURISING PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),, SURAT

In the result, Ground No.1 of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.293 & 294/Ahd/2005 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1988-89 & 1989-90 Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 10-C, Brijkutir Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(2), Surat. Nr.Nidhi Complex, Parle Point, Op.Umrigar School, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Abepp 6880 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2141 & 2142/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1988-89 & 1989-90 Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 10-C, Brijkutir Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(2), Surat. Nr.Nidhi Complex, Parle Point, Op.Umrigar School, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Abepp 6880 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Shah – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Usha Shrote – Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. These Four Appeals By Assessee, Out Of Which First Two Appeals (Ita (S) No. 294 & 294/Ahd/2005 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 08.12.2004, Which In Turn Arise Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) For A.Y. 1988-89 & 1989-90. Other

depreciation of Rs.22,48,941/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 29.05.1992. The assessing officer while passing

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation on sludge disallowances. The ld. CIT(A) held that eligibility was available to the assessee from A.Y. 2007-08 only. Thus initial allowance from A.Y. 2006-07 is not as per law. If the assessee had entered into an agreement with GIDC during 16 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals this Financial Year

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation on sludge disallowances. The ld. CIT(A) held that eligibility was available to the assessee from A.Y. 2007-08 only. Thus initial allowance from A.Y. 2006-07 is not as per law. If the assessee had entered into an agreement with GIDC during 16 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals this Financial Year

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation on sludge disallowances. The ld. CIT(A) held that eligibility was available to the assessee from A.Y. 2007-08 only. Thus initial allowance from A.Y. 2006-07 is not as per law. If the assessee had entered into an agreement with GIDC during 16 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals this Financial Year

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation on sludge disallowances. The ld. CIT(A) held that eligibility was available to the assessee from A.Y. 2007-08 only. Thus initial allowance from A.Y. 2006-07 is not as per law. If the assessee had entered into an agreement with GIDC during 16 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals this Financial Year

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation on sludge disallowances. The ld. CIT(A) held that eligibility was available to the assessee from A.Y. 2007-08 only. Thus initial allowance from A.Y. 2006-07 is not as per law. If the assessee had entered into an agreement with GIDC during 16 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals this Financial Year

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation on sludge disallowances. The ld. CIT(A) held that eligibility was available to the assessee from A.Y. 2007-08 only. Thus initial allowance from A.Y. 2006-07 is not as per law. If the assessee had entered into an agreement with GIDC during 16 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals this Financial Year

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation on sludge disallowances. The ld. CIT(A) held that eligibility was available to the assessee from A.Y. 2007-08 only. Thus initial allowance from A.Y. 2006-07 is not as per law. If the assessee had entered into an agreement with GIDC during 16 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals this Financial Year

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation on sludge disallowances. The ld. CIT(A) held that eligibility was available to the assessee from A.Y. 2007-08 only. Thus initial allowance from A.Y. 2006-07 is not as per law. If the assessee had entered into an agreement with GIDC during 16 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals this Financial Year

JANAKKUMAR MUKUNDPRASAD PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

depreciation ITA.418/SRT/2023 AY.14-15 Janakkumar M Patel of Rs.22,48,941/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 29.05.1992. The assessing

ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI, VAPI vs. VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is set aside and disposed of for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.72/Srt/2022 (Ay 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. Income-Tax, Vapi Circle, 135, 1St Floor, Via Vs Room No.704, 7Thfloor, Houe,Char Fortune Square-Ii, Daman Rasta,Gidc,Vapi-396195 Pan No: Aaacv 8289 P Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

48,183/- being deferred grant transferred to mee the depreciation on assets acquired out of grants from Government of India which is considered as relating to mutual activities and hence excluded from the definition of Income Tax chargeable to tax under section

SHREE SALASAR SAREES,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1154/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Salasar Sarees Vs. Ito, D-1401, Raghukul Textile Market, Ward – 1(2)(6), Ring Road, Surat – 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abqfs5653Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

section 112 of the Act, 1961 on capital gains computed u/s 50 of the Act, despite the fact that the deeming fiction u/s 50 of the Act is limited only to the mode of computation u/s 48 and 49 of the Act and does not affect the nature of the asset for the purpose of determining applicable tax rates under

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT vs. M/S. PRIME CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 143(3) dated 30.03.2015. 13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that on similar grounds of appeal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 the Tribunal passed the following order; “27 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that