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 10B to that extent and deserve to be deleted. 59. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The learned counsel for the assessee and Ld. D.R. have agreed that facts are identical as in assessment year 2006-07 in the case of the assessee company Therefore, the findings given therein would mutatis mutandis

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

72,744/- as claimed in the return of income. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of levying interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,92,951/-. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

72,744/- as claimed in the return of income. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of levying interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,92,951/-. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

72,744/- as claimed in the return of income. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of levying interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,92,951/-. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

72,744/- as claimed in the return of income. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of levying interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,92,951/-. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

72,744/- as claimed in the return of income. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of levying interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,92,951/-. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

72,744/- as claimed in the return of income. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of levying interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,92,951/-. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

72,744/- as claimed in the return of income. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of levying interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,92,951/-. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

72,744/- as claimed in the return of income. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of levying interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,92,951/-. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. GLOBE TEXTILES,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NOW RE-DESIGNATED AS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(6),, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. Globe Textiles, Vs. Ito, 45-46, Hashimi Estate, Ward – 2(1), Udhna Main Road, Surat. Surat-394 210. [Pan No. Aacfg 2121 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) ..

depreciation loss of earlier year should not be disallowed as per provision of Section 71 & 72 of the Act. In reply

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-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation on an amount of Rs.3,85,00,000/- being Foreign Exchange Fluctuation u/s.43A. Despite the fact that the said issue never formed part of show- cause notice u/s.263(1) of the Act, and therefore direction on this issue is beyond the purview of section 263 of the Act. The ld.Authorised Representative(AR) in this respect relied upon the decision

M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE CIT-I, BARODA

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation on an amount of Rs.3,85,00,000/- being Foreign Exchange Fluctuation u/s.43A. Despite the fact that the said issue never formed part of show- cause notice u/s.263(1) of the Act, and therefore direction on this issue is beyond the purview of section 263 of the Act. The ld.Authorised Representative(AR) in this respect relied upon the decision

M/S. VALENTINE CINE VISION LIMITED,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

72,952/- on the ground that the building was used for less than 180 days and accordingly, depreciation at only half of the applicable rate was to be allowed. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs. 1,29,837/- on account of unexplained premium towards Key man insurance policy. The assessment was completed at Nil after giving

THE ITO, WARD-4(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. VALENTINE CINE VISION LIMITED,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

72,952/- on the ground that the building was used for less than 180 days and accordingly, depreciation at only half of the applicable rate was to be allowed. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs. 1,29,837/- on account of unexplained premium towards Key man insurance policy. The assessment was completed at Nil after giving

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

72,099/- for gift distribution fund expense and disallowed Rs.8,83,239/- for society relief fund. The relevant fact leading to the above disallowances are that during the assessment, Assessing Officer noted that assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(via) of Rs.7.16 crores, bifurcation of which is recorded by Assessing Officer in para 9.1 of assessment order

M/S H R. LOGISTICS,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 6

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.703/Srt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16 H.R.Logistics, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 126, Municipal Shopping Centre, Ward-3(1)(4), Surat. Sahara Darvaja, Ring Road, Surat. [Pan: Aaffh 4624 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul R.Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Prasoon Kabra – Sr.Dr

section 68 is not at all applicable in respect of H.R.Logistics Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Surat /ITA No.703/SRT/2018/A.Y. 2015-16 Page 2 of 4 sundry creditors and secondly that the appellant has duly discharged the onus of proving the outstanding sundry creditors and hence, the impugned addition as erroneously confirmed by the learned CIT(A) needs