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

loss and unabsorbed depreciation as\nassessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and\nhence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed\nincome of Rs. 242,12,52,595/- without giving set

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

loss and unabsorbed depreciation as\nassessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and\nhence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed\nincome of Rs. 242,12,52,595/- without giving set

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

loss and unabsorbed depreciation as\nassessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and\nhence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed\nincome of Rs. 242,12,52,595/- without giving set

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

loss and unabsorbed depreciation as\nassessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and\nhence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed\nincome of Rs. 242,12,52,595/- without giving set

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

loss and unabsorbed depreciation as\nassessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and\nhence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed\nincome of Rs. 242,12,52,595/- without giving set

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

loss and unabsorbed depreciation as\nassessed in the regular assessment completed for the earlier years and\nhence, the assessment order passed by the AO arbitrarily at the assessed\nincome of Rs. 242,12,52,595/- without giving set

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

setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer without justifiable reasons.” ITA No. 377/SRT/2023 A.Y.18-19 Maheshwari Logistics Ltd. Facts of the case which can be stated shortly are as follows: The assessee 2. before us is a limited company and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 16.10.2018, declaring total income at Rs.13

SHRI SUDHIR KAPOORCHAND GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Sudhir Kapoorchand Gandhi, A.C.I.T., C/O-Ateet Gandhi, 3, Shepway Circle-2(3), Vs. Bungalow, Off Juhu Tara Road, Surat, Azad Lane, Juhu Koliwada, Near

set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14 of Rs. 6.93 crores

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL PUKHRAJ JAIN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.89/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Anil Pukhraj Jain, Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206-2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent)/ "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q ""या"ेप सं Cross Objection No.10/Srt/2021 (A/O Ita No.89/Srt/2017) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) Anil Pukhraj Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Room No.414, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Prop. Of Aakruti Stone, 206- 2Nd Floor, Tulsi Building, Vs. Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Somnath Mahadev Ni Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat – 395009. Appellant/Co-Objector (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahapj8569Q िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/ 01/2023

set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer's order may be restored.” 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Cross Objection No.10/SRT/2021, are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in partly confirming the action of assessing

THE SURAT PEOPLES CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,(OSD)-II,, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.957/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Surat Peoples Co-Operative Bank Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. ‘Vasundhara Bahavan’, Timaliyawad, Nanpura, Surat – 395 001. [Pan: Aaaat 2885 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

set of facts in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal while affirming the order of the ld.CIT(A) passed the following order. “10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the issue is duly covered by the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case

SHREE CHALTHAN VIBHAG KHAND SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARDOLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kambleshree Chalthan Vibhag Khand Income Tax Officer, Vs. Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Ward-1, At. & Po. Chalthan, Bardoli. Tal.Palsana, Surat-394305. [Pan : Aaaac0477A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akshay M Modi, Ar Respondent By: Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026 O R D E R

set off of carried forward of unabsorbed depreciation of preceding years against the income assessed at Rs. 8,98,11,787/- out of the carried forwards of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss

MOHMEDAMIN MOHMEDUMAR GENERAL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

loss during the year, due to which there was refund to the assessee. The appellant has also filed details of addition to the fixed assets and claim of depreciation. It enclosed ledger account copy of plant and machinery (Shuttle less waterjet looms). Further, the assessee purchased 16 imported Shuttle less waterjet looms from Yinn Chuen Logistics Warehousing

KHODIYAR MOTORS,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrisanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.729/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Khodiyar Motors Vs. Dcit, 1-2-3, Green Park, Surat Circle - 2(3), Navsari Road, Unn-Sachin, Surat Surat - 394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaffk4882M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2025

loss at Rs.12,19,451/-. However, as per the intimation u/s.143(1), the income was determined at Rs.62,73,189/-. There was a computational error in so far as the figure of depreciation was Rs.18,92,312/-. However, due to software error, depreciation was calculated otherwise than the block of asset method, because of which mismatch arose in the figure

M/S COPER CO. OPERATIVE SUGAR LTD,TAPI vs. ITO WARD-2, BARDOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Coper Co-Operative Sugar Ltd., Vs. Ito, At & Post - Dadariya, Tal – Valod, Dist – Ward – 2, Tapi - 394630 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaac5824F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation, total income was determined at Rs.16,38,15,260/- as against returned loss

VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED,VAPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VALSAD

In the result, various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Pr.C.I.T., Valsad. 135, 1St Floor, Via House, G.I.D.C. 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Vs. Char Rasta, Vapi, Gujarat, Arcade, Shanti Nagar, India-396195. Tithal Road, Pan: Aaacv 8289 P Valsad-396001. Appellant Respondednt

Loss Account to meet depreciation on assets acquired out of grants received from Government of India in earlier years prior to the amendment of section 2(24) by inserting clause (xviii) w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and duly covered by exclusion provided thereunder. 6. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in law and on the facts of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S SURAT LIFE CARE PVT. LTD., SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S. Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3, Unique Hospital, Opp. Kiran Motor, Surat Nr. Sosyo Circle Lane, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarcs8396M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By 14/12/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

loss of Rs.23,90,076/-, disclosed income of Rs.1,95,00,000/- and allowable depreciation of Rs. 32, 98,011/-. In the revised return, the assessee 160/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 M/s Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd. claimed deduction u/s 35AD of Rs.3,16,29,353/- @ 100% of the expenditure of capital nature incurred. Thereafter, for reasons known to the assessee only

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.

sets of appeal for both the assessment years i.e. 1988-89 and 1989-90. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that in case his points of submissions are accepted in ITA’s No.293 & 294/Ahd/2005, the appeals in ITA’s No.2141/Ahd/2013 & 2142/Ahd/2013 will become infructuous. 8.On merit, the Ld.AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer (AO) while

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

loss account. The appellant had wrongly claimed depreciation of Rs.2,02,34,458/- on assets purchased from grant income. The grant income should not be reduced while computing total income, which was not done by the AO. Hence, the ld. PCIT found that in the order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 31.03.2022, the aforesaid issues