THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT vs. SMT. URMI NILESH NAGARSETH, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Smt Urmi Nilesh Nagarseth, Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat C-4, Dharam Palace, B/H. Sneh Sankul Hall, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan : Abrpn1596Q Appellant Respondednt

disallowed the claim under section 10(37) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has sold the land

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

SAHAKARI KHAND UDUOG MANDAL LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

section 37 and the disallowance of both the expenditures\nincurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n5.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the\nlower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact that comparable

SAHADARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

section 37 and the disallowance of both the expenditures\nincurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n5.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the\nlower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact that comparable

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

section 37 and the disallowance of both the expenditures\nincurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n5.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the\nlower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact that comparable

MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,.,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, , NAVSARI

section 37 and the disallowance of both the expenditures\nincurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n5.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the\nlower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact that comparable

SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

section 37 and the disallowance of both the expenditures\nincurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n5.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the\nlower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact that comparable

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG, KAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD., NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

section 37 and the disallowance of both the expenditures\nincurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n5.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the\nlower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact that comparable

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

section 37 and the disallowance of both the expenditures\nincurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n5.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the\nlower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact that comparable

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 4 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court - Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.262/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., V The Income Tax Officer, C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, S Ward-2(1)(2), Surat. Timaliyawad, Nanpura, . Surat – 395 001. [Pan: Aaics 8963 M] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Manish J.Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

10. In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Ground No. 3 relates to disallowance of interest paid on TDS. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the interest paid by the assessee is not a penalty and compensatory in nature and is allowable deduction under section 37

RAJLAXMI POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, SURAT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Vs Rajlaxmi Polymers Pvt Ltd, Income Tax Officer, 5024,World Trade Centre, Ward -2 (1)(1), Near Udhna Darwaja, Surat, Ring Road, Surat-395002 Pan : Aabcr 1210 M Assessee Revenue Assessee By Sh. Sapnesh Sheth Ca/Ar Revenue By Ms. Anupma Singla Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2020

37 of IT Act. It be so held now. 6. We have heard the submission of learned authorised representative (AR) of the assessee and the learned senior department representative (DR) for the revenue and have gone through the orders of authorities 7 Rajlaxmi Polymers Pvt Ltd below. The learned AR of the assessee submits that initially assessment was completed under

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ACIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,07,70,324/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount while computing the book profits under section 115JB

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE DY.CIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,07,70,324/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount while computing the book profits under section 115JB

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

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,07,70,324/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount while computing the book profits under section 115JB

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

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,07,70,324/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount while computing the book profits under section 115JB

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

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,07,70,324/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount while computing the book profits under section 115JB

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ADDL.CIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,07,70,324/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount while computing the book profits under section 115JB

K. G. DEVELOPERS ,SURAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(3), SURAT NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1) SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), therefore, with the consent of parties, both these appeals were clubbed, heard together ITA No.428 & 429/Srt/2023 M/s KG Developers Vs DCIT and are being decided by this consolidated order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, the appeal being ITA No. 428/Srt/2023