VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED,VAPI vs. PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.582/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Vs. Pcit, 135, 1St Floor, Via House Gidc Char Valsad Rasta, Vapi – 396195, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacv8289P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms Arti N. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 30/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/08/2025

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 20.03.2024, by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Valsad [in short ‘PCIT’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad, has grossly erred in law as well

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

64. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals 65. Now we take ITA No. 1473/Add/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 09/03/2015. 66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially

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

64. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals 65. Now we take ITA No. 1473/Add/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 09/03/2015. 66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially

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

64. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals 65. Now we take ITA No. 1473/Add/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 09/03/2015. 66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially

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

64. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals 65. Now we take ITA No. 1473/Add/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 09/03/2015. 66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially

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

64. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals 65. Now we take ITA No. 1473/Add/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 09/03/2015. 66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially

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

64. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals 65. Now we take ITA No. 1473/Add/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 09/03/2015. 66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially

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

64. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals 65. Now we take ITA No. 1473/Add/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 09/03/2015. 66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially

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

64. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals 65. Now we take ITA No. 1473/Add/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09 (penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) vide order dated 09/03/2015. 66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially

THE ADDL.CIT., BHARUCH RANGE,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. BARODA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O. P. Meena

depreciation claim of Rs. 25, 60, 568 related to core banking solutions and further disallowed the claim of deduction of revenue expenditure amounting to Rs. 79, 64, 580 in respect of the core banking solutions implementation. These facts have been discussed by the AO at page number 2 to 5 of the assessment order. The AO was of the opinion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH vs. BARODA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O. P. Meena

depreciation claim of Rs. 25, 60, 568 related to core banking solutions and further disallowed the claim of deduction of revenue expenditure amounting to Rs. 79, 64, 580 in respect of the core banking solutions implementation. These facts have been discussed by the AO at page number 2 to 5 of the assessment order. The AO was of the opinion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH vs. BARODA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O. P. Meena

depreciation claim of Rs. 25, 60, 568 related to core banking solutions and further disallowed the claim of deduction of revenue expenditure amounting to Rs. 79, 64, 580 in respect of the core banking solutions implementation. These facts have been discussed by the AO at page number 2 to 5 of the assessment order. The AO was of the opinion

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT vs. SURAT CT SCAN PVT LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.505/Srt/2019(Ay 2008-09) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Surat Ct Scan Private Ltd., 1St Floor, Yash Plaza Income Tax Officer, Vs Complex, Dhatigara Street, Circle-2(1)(2),Room No. Nanpura, 205, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395001 Majura Gate, Pan No. Aaics 1581 K Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

64,620/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 19.11.2010 accepting the return of income. Subsequently, 2 M/s Surat CT Scan Pvt.Ltd. the case of assessee was reopened under section 147 on 19.10.2012. Notice under section 148 dated 19.10.2012 was served on the assesse. The assessing officer recorded that despite service

CHANDULAL A.SHAH(HUF),SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, Ind for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं././././I.T.A Nos.83 & 84/Srt/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2000-01 & 2004-05 1.Chandulal Amrutlal Shah (Huf), V. Income Tax Officer, Bunglow No.74, Saifee Society, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat. L.H. Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aaahc 8116 R] 2.Chandulal Amrutlal Shah, V. Income Tax Officer, Bunglow No.74, Saifee Society, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat. L.H. Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Adaps 5844 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

section 254 of the Act on 20.03.2014. The assessee has again filed an appeal before CIT (A) who had confirmed the addition made by the AO. The assessee is therefore, now in appeal before this Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee referred assessment order made in consequence of Tribunal order kg addition of Rs. 21,88,786 as against

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation of Rs.4.32 lacs is concerned the same has been claimed on mist chambers other assets used in growing saplings through clonal routes which has been treated as non-agricultural operation in our discussion made in assessment year 2002-03 while disposing of similar ground. Thus, the disallowance is restricted to Rs. 9.43 lacs and accordingly assessee gets relief

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

depreciation of Rs.4.32 lacs is concerned the same has been claimed on mist chambers other assets used in growing saplings through clonal routes which has been treated as non-agricultural operation in our discussion made in assessment year 2002-03 while disposing of similar ground. Thus, the disallowance is restricted to Rs. 9.43 lacs and accordingly assessee gets relief