ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. S D MATERIAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent." Item III (ii) - D(9) which is referred to in the aforesaid Instruction No. 617 which relates to fork lift trucks, reads as under : "Motor buses and motor lorries other than those used in a business of running them on hire." In the year 1973, the entry D(9) read as under

KADODARA POWER PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.143/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2006-07 M/S. Kadodara Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 30-33& 60-63, Block Income Tax, Circle-1, Surat No.179/2, Kadodara Char Rasta, Palsana, Surat 394327 Pan: Aacck5249E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation as per Appendix-1 (on written down value) and such option has been exercised by the assessee before the due date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 9. On review of provisions of section

M/S. SHANGRILA LATEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Shangrila Latex Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Circle-4, C/O. B.M. Parekh & Co., 203, 2Nd Surat. Floor, Navjivan Society, Bldg. No. 03, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaics1479E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjay S. Kapadia, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2022 28/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

section 72(1). This means that if there is any brought forward loss of the business then it shall be set off in priority to such unabsorbed depreciation. As such unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against such income from other sources". 8. Thus, on verification of the Schedule - 2 of ‘Capital & Reserve’ of the audited balance sheet

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXAMPTION) WARD, SURAT vs. SHREE SAIBABA SATSANG MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation and amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act, vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 is effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order passed by ld CIT(A), therefore we approve and confirm the findings of Ld. CIT(A). Grounds No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.Coming to ground No.3

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.

9 is against the confirmation of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,28,93,417/-. 46. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.1,28,93,417/- towards effluent treatment plant expenses to M/s. Vapi Waste and Effluent Management Company Limited as the assessee

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil the perquisite the claiming

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH vs. SNS TEXTILES LIMITED,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Sns Textiles Ltd. Income Tax Circle-2, 330-A, Opp. Atul Products Vs Bharuch, 2Nd Floor, Harikunj Ltd., Gidc, Ankleshwar- Building, Above Bank Of 393002 Baroda, Station Road, Pan : Aadcs 4565 N Bharuch-392001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

section 32(2). This decision was rendered after following the decision in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 364/ 210 Taxman 20 / 354 ITR 244 (Guj.). Similarly the Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT -2 v. British Motor Car Co. (1934) Ltd. [2018] 90 taxmann.com 370 (Delhi

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 143(3) of ITA No.431-432/SRT/2018 & CO 12/SRT/2021 (A.Ys 07-08 & 12-13) M/s Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. the Act on 31.03.2009 by making disallowance of depreciation of certain fixed assets. The matter was carried before the Tribunal. Before Tribunal, the assessee filed its additional ground of appeal for claiming depreciation of Rs.4.222 crore on goodwill. The additional

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 143(3) of ITA No.431-432/SRT/2018 & CO 12/SRT/2021 (A.Ys 07-08 & 12-13) M/s Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. the Act on 31.03.2009 by making disallowance of depreciation of certain fixed assets. The matter was carried before the Tribunal. Before Tribunal, the assessee filed its additional ground of appeal for claiming depreciation of Rs.4.222 crore on goodwill. The additional

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 32(1)(ii) of the Act. In the light of above backdrop, and facts of the case and considering the same in totality, we are inclined to agree with the assessee that the AO and Ld. CIT (A) were not justified is disallowing depreciation claimed by the appellant company to the tune of Rs.2,25,14,448 on intangible

SHREE HARI PROCESSORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(1)(2) (NEW ITO WD. 2(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shree Hari Processors India Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Block No.99/P, Post Ward-2(1)(2), [New Ito Wd Vs Tatithaiya, 2(1)(3)] Aayakar Bhawan, Tal-Palsana, Majura Gate, Surat-394 372 Surat-395001 E-Mail:Jain_Tex@Yahoo.Com Pan : Aadca 1313 N Appellant /Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer while making disallowance of depreciation has not investigated the fact that the plant & machinery were in fact lease out to the 8 Shree Hari Processors (I) P. Ltd tenant, which were sold in AY 2019-20 and Short Term Capital Gain/Loss was accepted by Revenue and no information

SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEWA MANDAL TRUST,UNA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.204/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Sewa Vs. The Ito, Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘Nfac), Delhi, In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036051308(1) Dated 30.09.2021, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

depreciation were disclosed in tax audit report, the disallowance of deprecation would not warrants penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act. Finally, ld Counsel prays the Bench that penalty imposed by the assessing officer may be deleted. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer