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.

section 40A (2) (b) is also not convincing because until the recent past, both companies had common promoters. Even in the year under assessment, few of the shareholders are common. Neither could the assessee company justified why it paid Rs.27.50 crores for what was essentially just land & building as per the books of Mitsu Ltd. Therefore, depreciation claimed of Rs.5

M/S. BAYER VAPI PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,),VAPI vs. THE ADDL.CIT., VAPI RANGE,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2912/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम M/S. Bayer Vapi Private Limited) Addl. Cit Range- (Formerly M/S. Bilag Industries Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Pvt. Ltd.), 306/3,Phase-Ii, Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat. National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 40A (2) (b) is also not convincing because until the recent past, both companies had common promoters. Even in the year under assessment, few of the shareholders are common. Neither could the assessee company justified why it paid Rs.27.50 crores for what was essentially just land & building as per the books of Mitsu Ltd. Therefore, depreciation claimed of Rs.1

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

66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially completed under Section 143(3) on 24/12/2010. Thereafter, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28/02/2013. The Assessing Officer while passing the reassessment

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

66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially completed under Section 143(3) on 24/12/2010. Thereafter, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28/02/2013. The Assessing Officer while passing the reassessment

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

66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially completed under Section 143(3) on 24/12/2010. Thereafter, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28/02/2013. The Assessing Officer while passing the reassessment

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

66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially completed under Section 143(3) on 24/12/2010. Thereafter, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28/02/2013. The Assessing Officer while passing the reassessment

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

66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially completed under Section 143(3) on 24/12/2010. Thereafter, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28/02/2013. The Assessing Officer while passing the reassessment

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

66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially completed under Section 143(3) on 24/12/2010. Thereafter, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28/02/2013. The Assessing Officer while passing the reassessment

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

66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially completed under Section 143(3) on 24/12/2010. Thereafter, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28/02/2013. The Assessing Officer while passing the reassessment

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

66. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2008-09 was initially completed under Section 143(3) on 24/12/2010. Thereafter, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28/02/2013. The Assessing Officer while passing the reassessment

MASJID-E-MOAZZAN & MAZAR-E-SAIFEE,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.451/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Masjid-E-Moazzan & Mazar-E- Assistant Commissioner Saifee, Of Income Tax, 3/873, Devdi Mubarak, Circle-2, Surat Zampa Bazar, Surat 395002 Pan:Aatmb 8182 R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

66,751 by claiming depreciation of Rs.1,39,85,615. Therefore, the assessee was show caused as to why depreciation should not be disallowed, when the assessee has availed deduction under section

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

MOHAMMEDALTAF ABDULKADAR MEMON,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1) AND DCIT,CPC, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mohammedaltaf Abdulkadar Memon, I.T.O. 4/4478 Taiyabi Street, Ward- 2(2)(1), Vs. Zampa Bazar, Surat & Dcit, Cpc Surat-395003. Bangalore) Pan: Ahzpm 3224 E Appellant Respondednt

depreciation to the extent of Rs. 66,147/- against Rs. 40,72,816/-. No reason is given for such disallowance. The assessee also furnished copy of tax audit report under Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of The Surat District Co- Income Tax Circle-2(2), Room Operative Bank Ltd. Vs No. 309, 3Rd Floor Aayakar Kanpith, Lalgate, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-395003 395001 Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

section 67(2) of the Gujarat Co-Op. Society Act (out of net profit) Rs.1,16,25,000/-  (ii) Provision against standard assets Rs.50,00,000/-  (iii) Provision against security depreciation fund Rs.1,50,00,000/- and 4 The Surat Dist. Co-Op Bank Ltd.  (iv) Provision against investment depreciation fund Rs.50,00,000/- Total: 3,66

M/S. BASE INDUSTRIES LTD.,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD -1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

66,300/- on account of depreciation. The action of the Learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and law and deserves to be deleted. 3. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

66,454/- as eligible deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that copy of ld.CIT(A) dated 01.10.2009 and the order of Tribunal is placed on record. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submits that copy of reasons recorded is also placed on record. The perusal of reasons recorded, which is as mentioned

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

66,454/- as eligible deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that copy of ld.CIT(A) dated 01.10.2009 and the order of Tribunal is placed on record. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submits that copy of reasons recorded is also placed on record. The perusal of reasons recorded, which is as mentioned

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

66,454/- as eligible deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that copy of ld.CIT(A) dated 01.10.2009 and the order of Tribunal is placed on record. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submits that copy of reasons recorded is also placed on record. The perusal of reasons recorded, which is as mentioned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S SURAT LIFE CARE PVT. LTD., SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S. Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3, Unique Hospital, Opp. Kiran Motor, Surat Nr. Sosyo Circle Lane, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarcs8396M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By 14/12/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

66,727/- as well as deduction u/s 35AD of the Act of Rs.3,16,29,353/- @ 100% of the expenditure. However, the Schedule DPM, forming part of the return, was empty; leaving no details of depreciation. The assessee again filed revised Return of Income in which deduction u/s 35AD of the Act was revised to Rs.4