BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

1,020 results for “disallowance”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai19,747Delhi13,512Chennai5,594Kolkata5,127Bangalore4,876Ahmedabad3,398Pune3,097Hyderabad2,312Jaipur1,726Cochin1,188Chandigarh1,053Surat1,020Indore904Visakhapatnam702Raipur670Cuttack646Karnataka554Rajkot524Nagpur474Lucknow381Amritsar374Panaji271Agra213Guwahati188Jodhpur188Ranchi170Telangana166Patna142Dehradun136Allahabad114Calcutta112SC105Jabalpur90Kerala66Varanasi53Punjab & Haryana27Orissa12Rajasthan9Himachal Pradesh4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Andhra Pradesh1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Bombay1Gauhati1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1J&K1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)108Addition to Income79Disallowance49Section 14835Deduction34Section 80I32Section 26329Section 14724Section 3723Limitation/Time-bar

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1000/AHD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

income from business for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC. The action of the AO is contrary to the facts and law. 41. The Ld.AO relying on the Hon`ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC) has disallowed

Showing 1–20 of 1,020 · Page 1 of 51

...
22
Section 6820
Section 142(1)20

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3510/AHD/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

income from business for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC. The action of the AO is contrary to the facts and law. 41. The Ld.AO relying on the Hon`ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC) has disallowed

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

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

ITA 107/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2021AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. T. Bidari, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 37

disallowances has to be carried forward to the subsequent years in which we have already paid income tax on the total income and the benefit of set off of carried forward losses is not available as the project is completed and the firm has closed the business

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

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

ITA 108/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2021AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. T. Bidari, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 37

disallowances has to be carried forward to the subsequent years in which we have already paid income tax on the total income and the benefit of set off of carried forward losses is not available as the project is completed and the firm has closed the business

KALUBHAI DULABHAI GOLAVIYA,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, , SURAT

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

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)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B.Koli, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 45(3)Section 54F

Business Income”. Hence, these above facts prove, that intention of the assessee is to hold the land as Capital Assets, therefore, we direct the assessing officer to assess the assessee`s transaction under the head capital gain. Thus, ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 17. So far ground No.2 is concerned, it relates to disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD vs. M/S. MANGALDEEP, VALSAD

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 699/SRT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69A

business income, therefore, assessing officer issued notice to the assessee and assessee was asked to explain as to why the aforesaid income of Rs.3,37,03,023/- should not be treated as income under section 69A of the Act and the expenses claimed against the same should not be disallowed

THE UDHNA UDYOGNAGAR SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, SURAT

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 3/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 3&4/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Udhna Udyognagar Sahakari Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Sangh Ltd, Ward.3(1), Central Road No.10, Room No.116, 1St Floor, Post Box No.1224, Aayakar Bhavan, Udyognagar, Udhna, Majuragate, Surat. Surat. Pan: Aaaat 2932K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Viresh I. Rudalal & िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rushi J. Parekh, C.A. Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 19.06.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 27.06.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 32Section 37(1)

disallowed by the A.O. by treating the income as business income and accordingly statutory allowance of Rs.1,57,942/- was disallowed

THE UDHNA UDYOGNAGAR SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, SURAT

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 4/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 3&4/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Udhna Udyognagar Sahakari Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Sangh Ltd, Ward.3(1), Central Road No.10, Room No.116, 1St Floor, Post Box No.1224, Aayakar Bhavan, Udyognagar, Udhna, Majuragate, Surat. Surat. Pan: Aaaat 2932K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Viresh I. Rudalal & िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rushi J. Parekh, C.A. Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 19.06.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 27.06.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 32Section 37(1)

disallowed by the A.O. by treating the income as business income and accordingly statutory allowance of Rs.1,57,942/- was disallowed

M/S. MAC INDUSTRIES,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1036/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) M/S. Mac Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, 2407/2, Gidc, Sarigam, Ward-6, Vapi. Ta- Umbergaon, Valsad-396230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefm2011M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora - Ar Respondent By : Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora - ARFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla – Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

business of purchasing raw cotton, ginning the same, making cotton beds and selling such cotton beds and cotton seeds. For the assessment year 2004-05, the assessee filed the return of income on 27.10.2004 declaring total income of Rs. 20.35 lacs (rounded off). The Assessing Officer framed scrutiny assessment on 27.10.2006 determining the total income of Rs. 20.46 lacs (rounded

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

ITA 141/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

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 154Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32

disallowed the depreciation and treated the rental income as income from “house property” instead of ‘business income’. The Assessing Officer

SHRI JAIPRAKASH KHANCHAND ASWANI,,SURAT vs. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2237/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meenaआ सं अ

Section 22Section 23

disallowance of interest payment for Rs.4,82,785/-. 12. The AO found that the assessee had shown interest income of Rs.7,48,298/- and claimed interest expenses of Rs.4,82,785/-. The AO found that the assessee could not furnish any details regarding the interest expenses of Rs.4,82,785/-. The assessee subsequently claimed it as business

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE INFRA, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

ITA 2973/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

business income to Shree Gokul Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2335 to 2338, 2972, 2613 to 2615 of 2016 /A.Y.2013-14 Page 9 of 13 income u/s.68. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether is whether there is any justification on the part of the AO to levy the penalty u/s.271(1)(c)? when there is no difference

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. VISHWAS HITECH INFRA PROJECT PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

ITA 2615/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

business income to Shree Gokul Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2335 to 2338, 2972, 2613 to 2615 of 2016 /A.Y.2013-14 Page 9 of 13 income u/s.68. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether is whether there is any justification on the part of the AO to levy the penalty u/s.271(1)(c)? when there is no difference

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. VISHWAS DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

ITA 2613/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

business income to Shree Gokul Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2335 to 2338, 2972, 2613 to 2615 of 2016 /A.Y.2013-14 Page 9 of 13 income u/s.68. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether is whether there is any justification on the part of the AO to levy the penalty u/s.271(1)(c)? when there is no difference

THE ITO, WARD-1,, BARDOLI vs. M/S. GIRIRAJ DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

ITA 2335/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

business income to Shree Gokul Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2335 to 2338, 2972, 2613 to 2615 of 2016 /A.Y.2013-14 Page 9 of 13 income u/s.68. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether is whether there is any justification on the part of the AO to levy the penalty u/s.271(1)(c)? when there is no difference

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. VISHWAS CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

ITA 2614/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

business income to Shree Gokul Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2335 to 2338, 2972, 2613 to 2615 of 2016 /A.Y.2013-14 Page 9 of 13 income u/s.68. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether is whether there is any justification on the part of the AO to levy the penalty u/s.271(1)(c)? when there is no difference

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

ITA 2337/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

business income to Shree Gokul Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2335 to 2338, 2972, 2613 to 2615 of 2016 /A.Y.2013-14 Page 9 of 13 income u/s.68. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether is whether there is any justification on the part of the AO to levy the penalty u/s.271(1)(c)? when there is no difference

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE GOKUL DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, all the Seven Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

ITA 2338/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

business income to Shree Gokul Developers & Others in ITA No’s: 2335 to 2338, 2972, 2613 to 2615 of 2016 /A.Y.2013-14 Page 9 of 13 income u/s.68. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether is whether there is any justification on the part of the AO to levy the penalty u/s.271(1)(c)? when there is no difference

M/S. SHUBH ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, , SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 317/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.317/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Shubh Enterprise Principal Commissioner Of Income V Tp Scheme No.14, Plot No.42, Opp. Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Recent Residency, Pal Village, Surat Gate, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 6271 K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T Bidari, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133Section 143Section 143(3)Section 184Section 263Section 40

business of running a hospital. For the assessment year -2004-05, the assessee filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer, accepted the return substantially except for making disallowance

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. AASTHA CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, all the Four Appeals of various assessee’s as listed

ITA 2087/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण वष" /A Y:

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

business income to income u/s.68. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether is whether there is any justification on the part of the AO to levy the penalty u/s.271(1)(c)? when there is no difference in the return of income and assessed income. For the sake of convenience the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are produced