THE ASSTT. CIT., CIRCLE - 2(2),, SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

10 The Surat Dist. Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs DCIT & 2 Ors of granting such deductions would stand frustrated if these deductions are implicitly neutralized against other independent deductions specifically provided under the provisions of the Act. To put it simply, the deductions permissible under Section 36(1)(vii) should not be negated by reading into this provision, limitations

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.2(1)(1), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD., SURAT

In the result, ground No.1& 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Assistant Commissioner The Surat District Co- Of Income Tax, Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Circle-2(1)(1), 1, Kanpith, Lalgate, Surat. Surat-395003 Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

6 ACIT Vs Surat Dist. Co-Op Bank Ltd. amendments to these clauses, we may also notice that proviso to Section 36(1)(viia)(a) was introduced by Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 1st April, 2000 and explanation to Section 36(1)(vii) was introduced by Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 1st April, 2001. 21. A Circular No.421

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

6. The main grievance of ld DR for the revenue in these grounds are that these disallowances are not covered by the provisions of section 36(l)(viia) of the Act therefore ld CIT(A) should not have deleted these disallowances. Therefore, ld DR stated that addition made by the assessing officer should be sustained and assessee is not eligible

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

6. The main grievance of ld DR for the revenue in these grounds are that these disallowances are not covered by the provisions of section 36(l)(viia) of the Act therefore ld CIT(A) should not have deleted these disallowances. Therefore, ld DR stated that addition made by the assessing officer should be sustained and assessee is not eligible

DHANESH JAYANTILAL CHOKSHI,VADODARA vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALARU

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhdhanesh Jayantilal Chokshi, Ito- Ward 2(5), Bharuch, B-17, Jash Villa, Satsang Gujarat / Vs. Bungalows, Old Padra Road, Cpc Bangalore . Vadodara, Gjuarat-390020. Bcmehta_05@Yahoo.Com Ph;942744114204 Pan No. Acapc 0450 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

vii) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of New Act. Thus, the assessing officer was fully justified in rejecting the assessees application under section 154. 5. On the issue of adjustment of CMRE of Rs. 65,642/- the assessee submitted that such amount is exempt under section 10(14)(i) and placed reliance on decision of Gujarat High Court

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

10. The assessee further explained that the commission of Rs. 3.24 crore was paid to Paras Petrofils Ltd. @ 5% of sales. The assessee paid commission on yarn and grey fabric sales in pursuance of agreement with the commission agent. The assessee company made huge investment as per main objective of the company and to increase its sale and profitability sought

SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

10. The assessee further explained that the commission of Rs. 3.24 crore was paid to Paras Petrofils Ltd. @ 5% of sales. The assessee paid commission on yarn and grey fabric sales in pursuance of agreement with the commission agent. The assessee company made huge investment as per main objective of the company and to increase its sale and profitability sought

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTERS PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

10. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account in a casual manner without pointing out any defect in the books of account. All bills and vouchers were found at the time of search were recorded in the books of assessee. Up to date books of accounts were maintained till the date of search. No bills or vouchers were found

SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTERS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

10. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account in a casual manner without pointing out any defect in the books of account. All bills and vouchers were found at the time of search were recorded in the books of assessee. Up to date books of accounts were maintained till the date of search. No bills or vouchers were found

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.1(1)(1),, SURAT vs. ENVIRO CONTROL PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Vs. Surat. Maharashtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aaace 8700 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

10 ACIT Vs Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd. as the assessee has already declared gross profit of Rs. 6,35,407/- in its P&L account, on such trading items, hence, the addition to the extent of Rs. 41,61,997/- (47,97,404 – 6,35,407) was confirmed, thereby granted substantial relief to the assessee. Further aggrieved by the order

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(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.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

6 of the assessment order. Ongoing through the purchase details of these shares, it was observed by the assessing officer that the Assessee had purchased shares of M/s Conart Trade's Ltd on 21.08.2011, directly from the company. Since the Assessee has purchased share of M/s Conart Trader's Ltd and sold shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd., therefore, the Assessee

BALUBHAI MUSTUFABHAI MAHIDA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Balubhai Mustufabhai Mahida, D.C.I.T., Post Valak, Valak Kamrej, Circle-2(2), Vs. Surat-394180 Surat. Pan No. Bkdpm 8643 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

6 Balubhai Mustufabhai Mahida Vs DCIT Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA) and the assessee was allowed for deduction of Rs. 20.00 lacs. The remaining cost of improvement are also genuine, though proof of such cost of improvement is not available with the assessee as the same was misplaced. 8. On the disallowance of deduction under Section

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PRIVATE LIMITED,DAMAN & DIU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

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.163/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Hamilton Houseware Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Plot No.49/50, Danydyog Industrial Estate, Piparia 396230, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd1683Q

10. On merits, Ld. Counsel submitted before us that Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, vide notice no. ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019-20/1017988366(1), dated 14.09.2019 (vide paper book page nos.7), wherein the issue raised by ld PCIT is mentioned and this shows that assessing officer conducted enquiry. 11. In response to notice of assessing officer

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. JAYSHREE AROMATICS PVT. LTD.,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Commissioner Jayshree Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Plot No.4703, 4704, 4705/1-4, Vs Circle-2, Bharuch. Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar, Dist. Bharch – 393002. Pan: Aabcj 8258 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

vii. ITO vs. Novelty Garments – 256 ITR 688 (Raj) 10. The ld.AR of the assessee also filed following documents on record: 1 Acknowledgement of Return of Income and Computation of Income 2 Revised return of Income alongwith commutation of income 3 Audited Annual Financial Statements 4 Tax Audit Report 5 Form No. 56G 6 Revised Form No. 56G 7 Notice

RANJITBHAI DHAYABHAI PANCHAL,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

disallowed and added back the gift to the total income of assessee by taking view that HUF does not fall in the list of relative. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A). The appeal of assessee was migrated to NFAC, Delhi. The ld CIT(A) also confirmed the action order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. GUJARAT POLYSOL CHEMICALS LIMITED, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant & & Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Gujarat Polysol Income Tax Chemicals Limited 9Th Floor, Fortune Square Ii, 1, Plot No. 1734, 3Rd Daman Road, Chala, Vapi Phase, Gidc, Vapi, 396191 Gujarat 396195 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg8908Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

vii) Books were rejected. (viii) Disallowances of 25% of bogus purchases were made. 6.5 The same chronology of action of the AO is there in the instant year as well. My predecessor held, on basis of various judicial decisions, that there cannot be sales without corresponding purchases. He then restricted addition to 7.5% of alleged bogus purchases. The ITAT Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. GUJARAT POLYSOL CHEMICALS LIMITED, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kant & & Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Gujarat Polysol Income Tax Chemicals Limited 9Th Floor, Fortune Square Ii, 1, Plot No. 1734, 3Rd Daman Road, Chala, Vapi Phase, Gidc, Vapi, 396191 Gujarat 396195 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg8908Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

vii) Books were rejected. (viii) Disallowances of 25% of bogus purchases were made. 6.5 The same chronology of action of the AO is there in the instant year as well. My predecessor held, on basis of various judicial decisions, that there cannot be sales without corresponding purchases. He then restricted addition to 7.5% of alleged bogus purchases. The ITAT Bench

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

vii) Part of the specified bank notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Bill, 2017 (vide Pb.12 to 14) 10. The ld Counsel, thus stated that provisions of section 69A of the Act are not applicable on deposits made post-demonetization since currency`s value guaranteed till December 31, 2016. For that ld Counsel relied on the Judgment of Coordinate Bench of ITAT