ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD vs. M/S. MANGALDEEP, VALSAD

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

69 of the Act. The Commissioner, also noted that the assessee had utilized the borrowed funds not for setting up of business, but for expansion of the business inasmuch as the fixed assets of the assessee firm increased and investment in the building also increased substantially. The Commissioner, therefore, was of the opinion that though the interest on borrowed funds

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

69 of the Act. 34. Ground No.8 relates to confirmation of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 2,24,800 under section 69C of the Act. Chandulal A Shah (HUF) v. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1),Surat/ITA. 83 & 84/SRT/2017/A.Y.2000-01 & 2004-05 Page 11 of 15 35. Ground No.9 relates to confirmation of unexplained expenses of Rs.2,35,000 under section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

section 32, the goodwill is no more depreciable asset, we are of the view that the amendment brought in the Act by way of Finance Act 2021 will be applicable prospectively and not in the year under consideration. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, we do not find any legality in finding of Ld. CIT(A), which

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

section 32, the goodwill is no more depreciable asset, we are of the view that the amendment brought in the Act by way of Finance Act 2021 will be applicable prospectively and not in the year under consideration. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, we do not find any legality in finding of Ld. CIT(A), which

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 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

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

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

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

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

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

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

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

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

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

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

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

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

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

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

69. We find that the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under Section 143(3) on 20/12/2011. The Assessing Officer while passing the 43 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals assessment order, made disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA of Rs. 9102996/-, sludge disposal charges of Rs. 137374/- and disallowed excess depreciation

KIRTIPRADA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation and amortization has significantly increased for the year as compared to preceding year as can be seen in the table shown below: Assessment Year. 2012-13 Kritiprada Fashion P Ltd. A.Y. Net Profit/ (Loss) (Rs.) Cash Profit (Rs.) 2011-12 (67,74,595) 18,13,564 2012-13 5,88,362 1,08,82,127 Thus, ld Counsel submits

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

depreciation nor provided any supporting evidences? 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground(s) of appeal either before or during the course of hearing

PRADEEPSINH BACHUBHAI GOHIL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Pradeepsinh Bachubhai Gohil, I.T.O., 304, Kailash Tower, N H No. 8, Ward-4, Vs. Samroli Chikhli, Dist.-Navsari, Navsari. Navsari-396521. Pan No. Aropg 7048 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

69 of the Act on account of credit entry appeared in the bank account of assessee. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission. On the written submission of assessee, the ld. CIT(A) called remand report from Assessing Officer, however, copy of 2 Shri Pradeepsinh Bachubhai

KALUBHAI DULABHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , SURAT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

depreciable asset used for the purpose of business is to be taxed under the head "capital gain" Therefore, according to the CIT(A), the AO had taken a myopic view of the matter by holding that merely because an asset is a business asset, the gain on its sale will be taxed as business income. b. The AO has himself