ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.2(1)(1), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD., SURAT

In the result, ground No.1& 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Assistant Commissioner The Surat District Co- Of Income Tax, Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Circle-2(1)(1), 1, Kanpith, Lalgate, Surat. Surat-395003 Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

depreciation fund is also provision to cover the value of stock-in-trade which is also contingent in nature. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after examining the statutory provision and held that assessee has a rural advance of Rs.159 Crore (rounded) against which the assessee has claimed only Rs.7.16 crores though they are entitled to claim

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

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

depreciation fund is also provision to cover the value of stock-in-trade which is also contingent in nature. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after examining the statutory provision and held that assessee has a rural advance of Rs.159 Crore (rounded) against which the assessee has claimed only Rs.7.16 crores though they are entitled to claim

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

depreciation fund is also provision to cover the value of stock-in-trade which is also contingent in nature. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after examining the statutory provision and held that assessee has a rural advance of Rs.159 Crore (rounded) against which the assessee has claimed only Rs.7.16 crores though they are entitled to claim

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

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

depreciation fund is also provision to cover the value of stock-in-trade which is also contingent in nature. We find that Ld. CIT(A) after examining the statutory provision and held that assessee has a rural advance of Rs.159 Crore (rounded) against which the assessee has claimed only Rs.7.16 crores though they are entitled to claim

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

vii. Also in our opinion that the said remission is covered by the provisions of section 41(1) and not covered by the provision of section 56 as this is a remission and not an income. viii. Irrespectively, it is a well-established point of law that remission of loan is not chargeable to tax as clearly stated

SAHAKARI KHAND UDUOG MANDAL LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid,\nvoid

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\n6\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid

MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,.,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, , NAVSARI

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid,\nvoid

SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid,\nvoid

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid,\nvoid

SAHADARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid,\nvoid

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG, KAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD., NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid,\nvoid

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE., NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,, NAVASARI

9 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and hence, the AO's disallowance\nof portion of the cane price confirmed by the C.I.T. (Appeals) ignoring the\nfact of payment of cane price made for the year out of commercial\nexpediency, being without jurisdiction, arbitrary or based on irrelevant or\nextraneous consideration, unfair, subjective, irrational, bad in law, invalid,\nvoid

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

1,688.89 the assets of NCPL i.e. Goodwill 5. The assessee further contended that the working /calculation of goodwill was approved by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the scheme itself. Copy of order of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was filed. The assessee also contended that the goodwill of assessees case is in substance to similar tangible assets includes

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

1,688.89 the assets of NCPL i.e. Goodwill 5. The assessee further contended that the working /calculation of goodwill was approved by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the scheme itself. Copy of order of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was filed. The assessee also contended that the goodwill of assessees case is in substance to similar tangible assets includes

BHARUCH DISTRICT CO OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,BHARUCH vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) The Bharuch District Co Op Milk A.C.I.T. Producers Union Limited, Circle-1, Vs. Old N.H. 8, Bholav, Bharuch. Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aaaat 1470 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

vii) KC Builders and Anr Vs ACIT (2004) 1 TMI 7 (SC) 7. In other alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, the ld. CIT(A) while confirming the order, held that the assessee’s case is covered by explanation-1 of Section 271(1

PRAGATI GLASS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. FORMER NAME PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD.,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIR.1, , BARODA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pragati Glass & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-1, Kharach, Kosamba (R.S), Bharuch. District. Bharuch, Bharuch -392001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcp7377H

vii) ‘modus used in rubber and plastic goods factories'. For this category of capital asset a higher rate of depreciation is provided for. But this shows that as per Income tax Rules, moulds are tangible capital asset of the nature machinery and plant on which depreciation rate as the omnibus clause (1) {other than the exception clause assets} @ 15% normal

KRISTINA NATHABHAI KRICHCHAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

9. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. Though facts have been discussed in detail