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

HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ram Lal Negi & Shri O. P. Meena

27,989/- made under section 40A(3)(a) and disallowance of Hetal Ramanlal Shah v. ITO Wd-2(2) Surat /I.T.A. No.2188/AHD/2014/A.Y.08-09 Page 9 of 9 Rs.15,45,212/- under section 40A(3)(b) of the Act totaling to Rs.33,73,201/-. These grounds of appeal are therefore, partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

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

10% of interest earned on fixed deposits, loan and income-tax refund aggregating to Rs.3,12,419/- ought to be deducted while excluding the interest income for the purpose of computing the deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not deleting

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

10% of interest earned on fixed deposits, loan and income-tax refund aggregating to Rs.3,12,419/- ought to be deducted while excluding the interest income for the purpose of computing the deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not deleting

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

10% of interest earned on fixed deposits, loan and income-tax refund aggregating to Rs.3,12,419/- ought to be deducted while excluding the interest income for the purpose of computing the deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not deleting

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

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

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 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

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

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 under section 14A, the Assessing Officer has not recorded

THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VAPI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

10 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 additions or disallowance is justifiable in the unabated assessment, when no material related to such additions was found. Therefore, all the additions made by the assessing officer in the assessment are not valid being beyond the scope of section 153A. Accordingly, the ground No. 1 of appeal raised

N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

10 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 additions or disallowance is justifiable in the unabated assessment, when no material related to such additions was found. Therefore, all the additions made by the assessing officer in the assessment are not valid being beyond the scope of section 153A. Accordingly, the ground No. 1 of appeal raised

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

10 consecutive assessment years between AY 1997-98 to AY 2017-18 and the assessee- company has opted to claim deduction from AY 2006-07, the assessment year under dispute is the third year of the operation which is as per the 25 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals provisions of section

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

10 consecutive assessment years between AY 1997-98 to AY 2017-18 and the assessee- company has opted to claim deduction from AY 2006-07, the assessment year under dispute is the third year of the operation which is as per the 25 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals provisions of section

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

10 consecutive assessment years between AY 1997-98 to AY 2017-18 and the assessee- company has opted to claim deduction from AY 2006-07, the assessment year under dispute is the third year of the operation which is as per the 25 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals provisions of section

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

10 consecutive assessment years between AY 1997-98 to AY 2017-18 and the assessee- company has opted to claim deduction from AY 2006-07, the assessment year under dispute is the third year of the operation which is as per the 25 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals provisions of section

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

10 consecutive assessment years between AY 1997-98 to AY 2017-18 and the assessee- company has opted to claim deduction from AY 2006-07, the assessment year under dispute is the third year of the operation which is as per the 25 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals provisions of section

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

10 consecutive assessment years between AY 1997-98 to AY 2017-18 and the assessee- company has opted to claim deduction from AY 2006-07, the assessment year under dispute is the third year of the operation which is as per the 25 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals provisions of section

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

10 consecutive assessment years between AY 1997-98 to AY 2017-18 and the assessee- company has opted to claim deduction from AY 2006-07, the assessment year under dispute is the third year of the operation which is as per the 25 ITA 2018/Ahd/2014 Enviro Technology Ltd. Vs ACIT &7Ors. appeals provisions of section