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)

depreciation under the head “Machineries” instead of actual available @ 15% as per the section 32, section 143(3) rule 5

KADODARA POWER PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.143/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2006-07 M/S. Kadodara Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 30-33& 60-63, Block Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat No.179/2, Kadodara Char Rasta, Palsana, Surat 394327 Pan: Aacck5249E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 32(1)(i) then there is no need to adopt indirect legislation i.e. Rule 5 (1A) of Income-Tax Rules, 1962. The CIT (A) also observed that the option as per WDV method or Straight Line Method given to the assessee does not mean that the assessee automatically becomes eligible for additional depreciation

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.),VAPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.219/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Bayer Vapi Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of V (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. S. Ltd.,), 306/3, Iind Phase, Gidc, Vapi – 396 195. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcb 2100 L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Shri S.T.Bidari-Cit(Dr) & Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Valsad Dated 29.01.2018 Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Dated 29.03.2016. 2. Grievances Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “01. The Order Of Assessment Is Contrary To The Facts & Prejudicial To The Assessee. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Additions Made By The Learned Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Are Contrary To Law & Based On Erroneous Understanding Of The Facts. 03. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming

depreciation both on intangible assets as well as marketing rights under section 32 of the Act. 6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is not possible to state the Tribunal has committed any legal error so as to warrant interference. No question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less, substantial question of law, can be stated

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXAMPTION) WARD, SURAT vs. SHREE SAIBABA SATSANG MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

5%. The question which arose before the Court for determination was : whether depreciation could be denied to the assessee, as expenditure on acquisition of the assets had been treated as application of income in the year of acquisition? It was held by the Bombay High Court that section

M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shankutala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 949)". (iii) Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil & Anr. v. Godawaribai F1999 (2) Mh. LJ. 2731: " The primary function of a court

M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shankutala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 949)". (iii) Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil & Anr. v. Godawaribai F1999 (2) Mh. LJ. 2731: " The primary function of a court

M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shankutala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 949)". (iii) Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil & Anr. v. Godawaribai F1999 (2) Mh. LJ. 2731: " The primary function of a court

M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shankutala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 949)". (iii) Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil & Anr. v. Godawaribai F1999 (2) Mh. LJ. 2731: " The primary function of a court

M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shankutala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 949)". (iii) Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil & Anr. v. Godawaribai F1999 (2) Mh. LJ. 2731: " The primary function of a court

M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shankutala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 949)". (iii) Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil & Anr. v. Godawaribai F1999 (2) Mh. LJ. 2731: " The primary function of a court

M D INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, SURAT

In the result, Eight appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.497 To 503 & 527/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1999-2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 M/S.M.D.Industries Pvt. Ltd., V Deputy Commissioner Of B-5, Rangnagar Society, S Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat. Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aabcm 6026 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta – Ca & Mrs. Sneha M.Padhiar – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 06.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Eight Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Surat Dated 06.09.2007 & 28.10.2009 For The Assessment Years 1999- 2000 To 2005-06 & 2000-01 Respectively.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shankutala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 949)". (iii) Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil & Anr. v. Godawaribai F1999 (2) Mh. LJ. 2731: " The primary function of a court

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 of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

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 of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

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 of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

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 of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

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 of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

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 of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

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 of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming