DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

section 133(6) concluded that mere payment by cheque is not sacrosanct nor it can make a genuine transaction. The Assessing Officer worked the peak credit in the case of Paras Gems, Madhav Gems & Mayur Gems and made addition of Rs.4.15 crores. The Assessing Officer further made addition on account of disallowance of interest expense by taking view that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, SURAT vs. M/S AALIDHAR TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

10. On the disallowance under section 80G of Rs.39,75,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) recorded that during assessment, the Assessing Officer called the details from various trusts by showing a notice, the registration certificate under section 12A and 80G were missing in respect of two trusts. As the registration certificates of trusts namely Shri Leuva Patel Pragati Mandal

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT vs. AALIDHAARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

10. On the disallowance under section 80G of Rs.39,75,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) recorded that during assessment, the Assessing Officer called the details from various trusts by showing a notice, the registration certificate under section 12A and 80G were missing in respect of two trusts. As the registration certificates of trusts namely Shri Leuva Patel Pragati Mandal

M/S. VRAJ DEVELOPERS,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Meena

section 80IB(10) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessees and material on record, confirmed the Order of the A.O. and dismissed the appeals of the assessees. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in paras 5 to 5.3 of the order are reproduced as under : “5. I have considered the facts of the case

M/S. VRAJ CORPORATION,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-5(2),, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Meena

section 80IB(10) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessees and material on record, confirmed the Order of the A.O. and dismissed the appeals of the assessees. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in paras 5 to 5.3 of the order are reproduced as under : “5. I have considered the facts of the case

SACHIN NOTIFIED AREA,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , SURAT - 1, 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.343/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Sachin Notified Area, Vs. The Pcit, Surat-1 Plot No.5719, Unnati Building, Sachin Gidc, Sachin, Surat-394230. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaals0146H Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Appellant By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

12. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that Assessing Officer has examined the eligibility of the assessee to claim the deduction under section 10(20) of the Act and the assessing officer has observed that assessee has not fulfilled the conditions to claim deduction under section 10(20) of the Act and therefore, assessing officer

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

disallowing a part of claim which was carried in appeal before CIT(A), requirement of conditions stipulated by sub-section (2) of section 80-I was very much subject matter of appeal and merely because Commissioner took a different view, it would not be sufficient to permit Commissioner to exercise power under section 263. 14. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

disallowing a part of claim which was carried in appeal before CIT(A), requirement of conditions stipulated by sub-section (2) of section 80-I was very much subject matter of appeal and merely because Commissioner took a different view, it would not be sufficient to permit Commissioner to exercise power under section 263. 14. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

disallowing a part of claim which was carried in appeal before CIT(A), requirement of conditions stipulated by sub-section (2) of section 80-I was very much subject matter of appeal and merely because Commissioner took a different view, it would not be sufficient to permit Commissioner to exercise power under section 263. 14. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat

AALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.94/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Plot No.168, Udhyog Nagar Road, Udhna, Surat -394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8469M (Assessee) (Respondent)

10,828/-respectively and the average of it comes to Rs.212,29,55,236/- which is more than the average investment taken by Assessing Officer of Rs.75,12,44,464/- and hence no disallowance under Section

RAJ ABHISHEK CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

disallowance in respect of deduction claimed u/s 80-IB of the Act. Thus, Ld. PCIT noted that Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2019 without making inquiries which should have been made and without application of mind. This make the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest

DHANSUKHBHAI PARAGJIBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1021/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dhansukhbhai Deputy Commissioner Of Paragjibhai Patel, Income-Tax, 143, Brahaman Faliya, Circle - 2(3) Surat Dindoli Udhna 394210 Pan: Avdpp7007 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed the claim under section 10(37) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has sold the land voluntarily, and it is not case of compulsory acquisition of land by SMC. Hence, conditions of section 10(37) of the Act are not satisfied. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Amaratbhai S. Patel

SHRI DINESHBHAI VITTALBHAI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.970/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dineshbhai Vittalbhai Income Tax Officer, Patel, Ward- 2(3)(7), Surat 6/1261, Bhut Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat Pan: Aatwpp 3597J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowed the claim under section 10(37) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has sold the land voluntarily, and it is not case of compulsory acquisition of land by SMC. Hence, conditions of section 10(37) of the Act are not satisfied. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Amaratbhai S. Patel

PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 , BHARUCH

In the result, ground No. 4 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pragati Glass Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kharach, Kosamba (R.S), District Vs. Cir. 1, Bharuch-394120 Station Road, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aabcp 7377 H Appellant Respondent

10. Ground No. 3 relates to disallowance under section 14A. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that during the relevant period for assessment year under consideration the assessee has not earned any exempt income. The Assessing Officer made disallowance by taking view and the assessee has made investment of Rs.1.69 crores and incurred expenses interest expenses of Rs.2.93 crores

M/S. S.D. MINERALS PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE JT.CIT.,(OSD)CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.554/Srt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. S.D. Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Joint Commissioner Of 3009, World Trade Centre, Income-Tax Circle –4 Ring Road Surat 395002 (Osd)Surat Pan: Aakcs 3533 K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

12 of 16 section. It is open to the assessee to furnish to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer the circumstances under which the payment in the manner prescribed in section 40A(3) was not practicable or would have caused genuine difficulty to the payee. It is also open to the assessee to identify the person who has received

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT vs. M/S. SRUSHTI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meena

disallowed by AO and assessment was completed. Page 8 of 17 Srushti Corporation Vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), ACIT, Cent. Cir-2 & DCIT, Cir-2(3), Surat/A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 8. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not given any findings

THE ITO, WARD-5(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. SRUSHTI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meena

disallowed by AO and assessment was completed. Page 8 of 17 Srushti Corporation Vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), ACIT, Cent. Cir-2 & DCIT, Cir-2(3), Surat/A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 8. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not given any findings

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. SRUSHTI CORPORATION,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meena

disallowed by AO and assessment was completed. Page 8 of 17 Srushti Corporation Vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), ACIT, Cent. Cir-2 & DCIT, Cir-2(3), Surat/A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 8. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The CIT (A) observed that the AO has not given any findings