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

22. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged deleting the disallowance under section 14A. The assessee has claimed exempt income from shares and mutual funds of Rs.1.20 crore and profit from partnership firm to Rs.2.55 crore. The assessee during the assessment suo motu disallowed Rs.1,10

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

22. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged deleting the disallowance under section 14A. The assessee has claimed exempt income from shares and mutual funds of Rs.1.20 crore and profit from partnership firm to Rs.2.55 crore. The assessee during the assessment suo motu disallowed Rs.1,10

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

disallowances made by AO are confirmed and grounds taken by appellant are dismissed.” 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee followed PCM which is accepted by the department in earlier year. He has referred to statement of Shri Maganbhai Radadyi in which he has stated that from three projects

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

disallowances made by AO are confirmed and grounds taken by appellant are dismissed.” 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee followed PCM which is accepted by the department in earlier year. He has referred to statement of Shri Maganbhai Radadyi in which he has stated that from three projects

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

disallowance of any expense at all [In favour of assessee] Sachin Notified Area Section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Local authority - Assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04 - Where assessee was engaged in activity of promotion and development of market committees and in that process undertook capital projects of market committees, income from sale of tender forms

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

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

disallow the deduction of Rs. 85,22,980/- u/s. 80IB(10) on the ground that project, as a whole, was not complete within the prescribed time limit. In reply, assessee submitted that initially the Page 6 of 17 Srushti Corporation Vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), ACIT, Cent. Cir-2 & DCIT, Cir-2(3), Surat/A.Y

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

disallow the deduction of Rs. 85,22,980/- u/s. 80IB(10) on the ground that project, as a whole, was not complete within the prescribed time limit. In reply, assessee submitted that initially the Page 6 of 17 Srushti Corporation Vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), ACIT, Cent. Cir-2 & DCIT, Cir-2(3), Surat/A.Y

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

disallow the deduction of Rs. 85,22,980/- u/s. 80IB(10) on the ground that project, as a whole, was not complete within the prescribed time limit. In reply, assessee submitted that initially the Page 6 of 17 Srushti Corporation Vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), ACIT, Cent. Cir-2 & DCIT, Cir-2(3), Surat/A.Y

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

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

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

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

10. Similarly, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Gurdas Garg v. CIT Bathinda [2015] 63 taxmann.com 289 (Punjab & Haryana) while considering similar issue held that wherein it was held that where genuineness of transactions made in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000 was not disbelieved by authorities, same cannot be disallowed under section

SHRI MOHANBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

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 NAVNITBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

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

VASANTBHAI MOHANBHAI BHANDHARI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

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 AMBUBHAI C. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member Sn

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