THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, SURAT vs. UJALA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhwith Co No.29/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Vs. Ujala Dyeing & Printing Surat. S/112, Jj A.C. Market Ring Road Dist. Surat Pan : Aaacu 2949 M "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ujala Dyeing & Printing Vs. Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) S/112, Jj A.C. Market Surat. Ring Road Dist. Surat Pan : Aaacu 2949 M (Applicant) (Respondent)

depreciation of Rs.19,87,110/- only [Rs.2574715/— Rs.5,87,605/-] can be added . However, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in its decision in the case of Radhe Developers India Ltd. reported in 329 ITR1 has held that the act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section

UJALA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhwith Co No.29/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Vs. Ujala Dyeing & Printing Surat. S/112, Jj A.C. Market Ring Road Dist. Surat Pan : Aaacu 2949 M "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ujala Dyeing & Printing Vs. Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) S/112, Jj A.C. Market Surat. Ring Road Dist. Surat Pan : Aaacu 2949 M (Applicant) (Respondent)

depreciation of Rs.19,87,110/- only [Rs.2574715/— Rs.5,87,605/-] can be added . However, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in its decision in the case of Radhe Developers India Ltd. reported in 329 ITR1 has held that the act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section

MUKESH RAJENDRA PRASAD THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Mukesh Rajendra Prasad Assistant Commissioner Of Thakur Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vs 3-9-9R Navjivan Society, Room No.708, 7Th Floor, Lamington Road, Mumbai- Fortune Square-Ii, Chala, 400008 Daman Road, Vapi-396191 Pan : Aarpt 3055 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 18.12.2018. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case erred in confirming the decision of Assessing Officer in making addition (of depreciation of Rs.1,87

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

section 80IA. Both assessee and revenue has preferred appeal before Tribunal and the issue was set aside the issue to CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) in second round has mainly followed finding of his predecessor CIT(A), given his finding at para 5.7 to 5.11 and reworked cost attributable to Lower Pressure steam at page No 123. The said

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

section 80IA. Both assessee and revenue has preferred appeal before Tribunal and the issue was set aside the issue to CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) in second round has mainly followed finding of his predecessor CIT(A), given his finding at para 5.7 to 5.11 and reworked cost attributable to Lower Pressure steam at page No 123. The said

SHRI BHARATKUMAR T. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, Ground No.1 of appeal is allowed

depreciation. It is an admitted fact that the assessing officer while passing the assessment order rejected the books of accounts and estimated the gross profit @10% turnover by passing the flowing order: “The assessee failed to produce books of accounts from which the G.P. position can be verified. The assessee does not maintain quantitative tally stock as is evident from

RAJVI CORPORATION,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. Rajvi Corporation, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(2)(2), D-3, Om Final Plot No. 108, Bombay Surat. Food Compound Kasanagar Road, Nr. Idbi Bank Katargam, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofr0631E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ronak Parekh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A),-3/10473/2016-17 Dated 19.07.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

depreciation. It is an admitted fact that the assessing officer while passing the assessment order rejected the books of accounts and estimated the gross profit @10% turnover by passing the flowing order: “The assessee failed to produce books of accounts from which the g.p. position can be verified. The assessee does not maintain quantitative tally stock as is evident from

GIPILON TEXTURISING PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),, SURAT

In the result, Ground No.1 of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.293 & 294/Ahd/2005 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1988-89 & 1989-90 Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 10-C, Brijkutir Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(2), Surat. Nr.Nidhi Complex, Parle Point, Op.Umrigar School, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Abepp 6880 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2141 & 2142/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1988-89 & 1989-90 Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 10-C, Brijkutir Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(2), Surat. Nr.Nidhi Complex, Parle Point, Op.Umrigar School, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Abepp 6880 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Shah – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Usha Shrote – Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. These Four Appeals By Assessee, Out Of Which First Two Appeals (Ita (S) No. 294 & 294/Ahd/2005 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 08.12.2004, Which In Turn Arise Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) For A.Y. 1988-89 & 1989-90. Other

depreciation. It is an admitted fact that the assessing officer while passing the assessment order rejected the books of accounts and estimated the gross profit @10% turnover by passing the flowing order: “The assessee failed to produce books of accounts from which the g.p. position can be verified. The assessee does not maintain quantitative tally stock as is evident from

GIPILON TEXTURISING PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),, SURAT

In the result, Ground No.1 of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.293 & 294/Ahd/2005 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1988-89 & 1989-90 Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 10-C, Brijkutir Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(2), Surat. Nr.Nidhi Complex, Parle Point, Op.Umrigar School, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Abepp 6880 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2141 & 2142/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1988-89 & 1989-90 Gipilon Texturising Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 10-C, Brijkutir Brijwasi Estate, Ward-1(2), Surat. Nr.Nidhi Complex, Parle Point, Op.Umrigar School, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Abepp 6880 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Shah – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Usha Shrote – Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. These Four Appeals By Assessee, Out Of Which First Two Appeals (Ita (S) No. 294 & 294/Ahd/2005 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 08.12.2004, Which In Turn Arise Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) For A.Y. 1988-89 & 1989-90. Other

depreciation. It is an admitted fact that the assessing officer while passing the assessment order rejected the books of accounts and estimated the gross profit @10% turnover by passing the flowing order: “The assessee failed to produce books of accounts from which the g.p. position can be verified. The assessee does not maintain quantitative tally stock as is evident from

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

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S J.K. Paper Ltd. Circle-1(1)(2), P.O. Central Pulp Mill, Vs. Surat. Fort Songadh, Surat. Pan : Aaact 6305 N Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3) of the Act on 13/03/2015 determining total income of Rs. 42.62 crores and book profit of Rs. 53.91 crores. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made following additions: 1. Disallowance of expenses claimed on account of Rs. 89,22,235/- social forestry expenses and depreciation on assets used for social forestry. 2. Disallowance of claim

JANAKKUMAR MUKUNDPRASAD PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 BARDOLI, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

depreciation. It is an admitted fact that the assessing officer while passing the assessment order rejected the books of accounts and estimated the gross profit @10% turnover by passing the flowing order: “The assessee failed to produce books of accounts from which the g.p. position can be verified. The assessee does not maintain quantitative tally stock as is evident from

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)

87,27,788/- has been offered to tax and capital gain returned by assessee cannot be taxed as business income since: 1. The assessee was not indulged in the activity of either construction or dealing in plots or land. From A.Y 2007-08 to A.Ys 2010-11, the assessee carried out following activity: 2007-08 : Agriculturist 2008-09 : Agriculturist

SHIVAM ENTERPRISE,ALTHAN vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

depreciation of Rs.26,592/-. In view of such claims the assessee has returned income at Rs.7,88,56,573/- against the income disclosed at Rs.8,20,00,000/- during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act. Therefore, ld PCIT noticed that assessee has claimed this amount of Rs.31,43,427/-( Rs.8,20,00,000- Rs.7

SHYAM CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

depreciation of Rs.26,592/-. In view of such claims the assessee has returned income at Rs.7,88,56,573/- against the income disclosed at Rs.8,20,00,000/- during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act. Therefore, ld PCIT noticed that assessee has claimed this amount of Rs.31,43,427/-( Rs.8,20,00,000- Rs.7

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

ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI, VAPI vs. VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is set aside and disposed of for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.72/Srt/2022 (Ay 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Vapi Green Enviro Ltd. Income-Tax, Vapi Circle, 135, 1St Floor, Via Vs Room No.704, 7Thfloor, Houe,Char Fortune Square-Ii, Daman Rasta,Gidc,Vapi-396195 Pan No: Aaacv 8289 P Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

87,238/- is not the business income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the depreciation amounting of Rs.91,48,183/-” 2. The perusal of record shows that the order impugned in this appeal is passed by Ld. NFAC on 29.12.2021, however, present appeal

M/S. GLOBAL SYNTEX,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

depreciation of Rs.29,97,290/- and Rs.47,98,831/- respectively. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the assessing officer (AO) noted that assessee has turnover of Rs.19,87,17,900/- and gross profit of Rs.1,66,47,052/-. The assessee worked out Gross Profit @ 8.38%. In earlier years, i.e. in A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee has shown

M/S. MAHESHWARI LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.377/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Maheshwari Logistics Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Shed No.A2-3/2 Mll House, Vs. Opp. Upl, 1St Phase, Gidc, Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Vapi, Valsad-396195 Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad- 396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 8332 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On perusal of records, it was noted by ld PCIT that in Note 13 of the Annual Report of the company for financial year 2017-18, the assessee-company has shown addition to the fixed asset in the following manner: (amount in Rs) Tangible asset 38,24,29,117 Intangible asset