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

23 taxmann.com 300 (Del),  DCIT Vs M/s Creative Trendz Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.272 & 273/SRT/2016 dated 13.11.2020  PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain ITA No.23/2021 dated 12.02.2021  CIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj),  CIT vs. Apex Therm Packaging (P) Ltd. 42 taxmann.com 472 (Gul). 10. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone

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

10,010 under section 14A. The Assessing Officer invoked the provision of Rule 8D made disallowance of Rs.2.15 crore by considering that assessee had non-current investment of Rs.207.90 crore. The ld. AR of the assessee while making his submission submitted that expenses relating to exempt income that is share trading expenses is only Rs.8,29,549/-, which has been

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

10,010 under section 14A. The Assessing Officer invoked the provision of Rule 8D made disallowance of Rs.2.15 crore by considering that assessee had non-current investment of Rs.207.90 crore. The ld. AR of the assessee while making his submission submitted that expenses relating to exempt income that is share trading expenses is only Rs.8,29,549/-, which has been

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

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

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

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

23. The case of the assessee was re-opened under section 147 on 28.03.2012. Notice under section 148 was served upon assessee on 30.03.2012. The case of assessee was re-opened by Assessing Officer while finalizing assessment for AY 2010-11 by taking view that assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA as it was not having agreement

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

23. The case of the assessee was re-opened under section 147 on 28.03.2012. Notice under section 148 was served upon assessee on 30.03.2012. The case of assessee was re-opened by Assessing Officer while finalizing assessment for AY 2010-11 by taking view that assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA as it was not having agreement

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

23. The case of the assessee was re-opened under section 147 on 28.03.2012. Notice under section 148 was served upon assessee on 30.03.2012. The case of assessee was re-opened by Assessing Officer while finalizing assessment for AY 2010-11 by taking view that assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA as it was not having agreement

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

SANJIVKUMAR A. SHAH,VALSAD vs. I. T. OFFICE, VALSAD CIRCLE , VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.187/Srt/2021 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sanjivkumar A Shah Income Tax Department, 4Th Floor, Amar Arcade, Valsad Circle, Valsad Vs Halar Road, Valsad-396001 -396001 Pan : Acpps 0794 L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

23,700/- and long-term capital gains of Rs.9,10,968/-). The investment were made by assessee from his own fund and no leverage cost is associated in making such investment. No borrowing is made for making the investment. The assessee before the Assessing Officer reasonably explained that no cost was incurred for earning exempt income. In computing the disallowance

SHRI NATVARBHAI K. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY 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 CHAMPAKBHAI K. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY 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 GAMANBHAI K. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY 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 BALWANTRAY M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1),, 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 ISHWARBHAI M. PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(2),, 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 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 AMRATLAL MAGANLAL DESAI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1),, 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