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

56,73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

56,73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

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

56,73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

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

56,73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

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

56,73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

56,73,002/- U/s 36(1)(viia). The ae was asked to furnish the justification and working for the above claim. In response the assessee has submitted the calculation as under Gross Total income before claiming 10,20,63,748 deduction U/s36(1)(viia) 7.5% 76,54,781 Avg. Aggregate Rural Advances 20,05,106,000 10% of above

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)

56,547 16.05.2018 TOTAL-B 5,08,713 TOTAL-A+B 17,49,931 65,510 18,15,441 6. We note that as per proviso to section 43B of the Act, if the assessee pays the employers` contribution to provident fund and ESIC before the due date of furnishing return of income under section 139(1

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)

56,547 16.05.2018 TOTAL-B 5,08,713 TOTAL-A+B 17,49,931 65,510 18,15,441 6. We note that as per proviso to section 43B of the Act, if the assessee pays the employers` contribution to provident fund and ESIC before the due date of furnishing return of income under section 139(1

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

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 in the above case laws. S.32(2) provides for the carry forward of unabsorbed 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

56,78,283 1,82,05,643 2. Building 6,38,80,263 7,50,36,771 3. Architects Fees 22,69,000 ITA No.219/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2012-13 M/s.Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd., 4. Manufacturing and 16,18,00,600 process Know How 5. Registration and 1,83,14,986 commercial rights. 6. Others 1

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 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.,, NAVSARI

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 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

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

depreciation,\nwhile Ground No. 15 is general in nature and does not call for separate\nadjudication. Since all effective grounds stem from the single determinative\nquestion of whether the excess cane price represents a deductible business\nexpenditure or a non-allowable appropriation of profit, Grounds Nos. 1 to\n14 are taken up together and adjudicated in a consolidated manner

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

56. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. 57. Now we take ITA No. 1845/Ahd/2016 for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in upholding the action of the Assessing