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

10,76,07,470 4. The Assessing Officer further noted that assessee has filed revised computation of income wherein assessee has made disallowance of Rs.4,59,140/- under section 14A. The assessee also inform that disallowance of Rs.4,59,140/- is 1.00 % of exempt income. The assessee also submitted that Rs.16,57,950/- was also disallowed while computing total income

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

10,76,07,470 4. The Assessing Officer further noted that assessee has filed revised computation of income wherein assessee has made disallowance of Rs.4,59,140/- under section 14A. The assessee also inform that disallowance of Rs.4,59,140/- is 1.00 % of exempt income. The assessee also submitted that Rs.16,57,950/- was also disallowed while computing total income

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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 254 for the year under consideration disallowed 10% ad hoc expenses for earning income from other source (interest income). On appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the disallowance was upheld. On further appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.225/Ahd/2010 dated 26.07.2013, the issue was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the nexus between

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 254 for the year under consideration disallowed 10% ad hoc expenses for earning income from other source (interest income). On appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the disallowance was upheld. On further appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.225/Ahd/2010 dated 26.07.2013, the issue was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the nexus between

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 254 for the year under consideration disallowed 10% ad hoc expenses for earning income from other source (interest income). On appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the disallowance was upheld. On further appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.225/Ahd/2010 dated 26.07.2013, the issue was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the nexus between

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(38) amounting to Rs.93,96,261/-. We observe that above noted both issues relate to disallowance under section 14A r.w.r.8D of the Rules, therefore, we will adjudicate them together. Now, first of all, we shall examine whether these issues were examined by the assessing officer while framing original assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA

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

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

25,093/- and disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

25,093/- and disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

25,093/- and disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

25,093/- and disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

25,093/- and disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

25,093/- and disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

25,093/- and disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

25,093/- and disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-.The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment for this year by recording the reasons that in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, the assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 30.12.2011. As per the same, deduction claimed under section 80IA was disallowed and assessee did not fulfil

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

section 80IB (10) of the Act. Page 4 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 6. The brief facts, as discussed by AO in the assessment order, are that assessee is engaged in the business as builder and developer. During the year

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

section 80IB (10) of the Act. Page 4 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 6. The brief facts, as discussed by AO in the assessment order, are that assessee is engaged in the business as builder and developer. During the year