ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. M/S HI-TECH SWEET WATER TECHNOLOGIES(P) LTD., SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.230/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Hi-Tech Sweet Water Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Technologies (P.) Ltd., 5Th Room No.505, Floor, Vs. 4, Gopal Nagar, Nandeda Char Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Rasta, Gidc, Bardoli–394601 Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach7432C िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

section 80IA of the Act should be disallowed. The issue before us is relating to disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act as the assessee did not file form 10CCB alongwith the Return of Income. According to the assessing officer, the deduction u/s 80IA was disallowed as the assessee failed to file the form 10CCB alongwith the return

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the order of the lower authorities. We find that this combination in assesses own case for AY 2008-09 in ITA No. 1849/Ahd/2014 on similar issue on similar set of facts allowed relief to the assessee by passing the following order; 19. We have considered the rival submissions

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the order of the lower authorities. We find that this combination in assesses own case for AY 2008-09 in ITA No. 1849/Ahd/2014 on similar issue on similar set of facts allowed relief to the assessee by passing the following order; 19. We have considered the rival submissions

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the order of the lower authorities. We find that this combination in assesses own case for AY 2008-09 in ITA No. 1849/Ahd/2014 on similar issue on similar set of facts allowed relief to the assessee by passing the following order; 19. We have considered the rival submissions

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the order of the lower authorities. We find that this combination in assesses own case for AY 2008-09 in ITA No. 1849/Ahd/2014 on similar issue on similar set of facts allowed relief to the assessee by passing the following order; 19. We have considered the rival submissions

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the order of the lower authorities. We find that this combination in assesses own case for AY 2008-09 in ITA No. 1849/Ahd/2014 on similar issue on similar set of facts allowed relief to the assessee by passing the following order; 19. We have considered the rival submissions

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the order of the lower authorities. We find that this combination in assesses own case for AY 2008-09 in ITA No. 1849/Ahd/2014 on similar issue on similar set of facts allowed relief to the assessee by passing the following order; 19. We have considered the rival submissions

PARSBEN JIVANBHAI VADHIYA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(3), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.47/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Parasben Jivanbhai Vadhiya Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Village Budhaleshwar, Tal. Income-Tax, Circle-(3), Vs Mahuva, Surat-394250 Surat Pan No: Apvpv 0109 F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 25.01.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 06.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.1,54,500/- U/S 270A Of The I.T.Act, 1961. Parasben J. Vadhiya 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Although Assessee Sought Adjournment Upto 12/01/2023. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) May Please Be Deleted.

139(1) of the Act. In response to show cause against levy of penalty, the assessee filed its reply through ITBA portal on 05.01.2021, which was not considered by assessing officer. The assessing officer imposed penalty under section 270A(2) @ 200% of tax payable for alleged under-reporting income in consequence of misreporting. The Assessing Officer worked 5 Parasben

M/S. ASCENT MEDITECH,,U T OF D & NH vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2155/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Ay: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Ascent Meditech, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Survey No.678/1/3, First Floor, Sai Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Industrial Estate, 2Nd Phase, Naroli, Ut Vapi. Of D&Nh-396235 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifa5120D (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimal Sinh Parmar - Ar Respondent By : Miss Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

139(1) of the Act, the same would be allowable as deduction, are concerned, With respect and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we are not in agreement with the view taken by the aforementioned High courts. As discussed hereinabove, as there is no amendment in Section section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act and considering section

AALIDHRA TEXFAB PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. CPC CURRENT JURISDICTION- DCIT,CIRCLE 1(1)(1),SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.153/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Aalidhara Texfab Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Cpc, 2, Functional Estate, New Industrial Current Jurisdiction: Estate, Road No.6, Udhna, Surat – Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), 394210, Gujarat Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aasca8215E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

9, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of learned assessing officer (CPC) by processing the return

KHODIYAR MOTORS,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrisanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.729/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Khodiyar Motors Vs. Dcit, 1-2-3, Green Park, Surat Circle - 2(3), Navsari Road, Unn-Sachin, Surat Surat - 394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaffk4882M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2025

9. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have deliberated the case laws relied on by Ld. AR. The appellant filed ITR-5 for AY 2013-14 on 06.10.2013, declaring business or profession loss

HUBERGROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VAPI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Plot No.808/E, Phase-Ii, Income Tax, Valsad, Room Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 No.301, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Pan No. Aaach 7063 F Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

9. On the other issue towards expense which was incurred for earning exempt income. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer considered entire profit and loss account and detailed furnished by assessee and the Assessing Officer after considering such details disallowed certain amount as recorded in para-7.1 and para-7.5 of the assessment order and took

BHAVNA ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Bhavna Enterprise, Vs. The Adit, 30, Ambika Nagar Society, Cpc, Bengaluru Hazira Road, Ichchhapore, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer: Surat - 394510 The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfb5274K (Appellant) (Respondent)

139(1) of the Act, the assessee(s) would be entitled to deduction under Section 43-B on actual payment basis and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This proviso, however, did not apply to the contribution made by the assessee(s) to the labour welfare funds. To this effect, the first proviso stood introduced with effect

SHREE SUIGAM KHODADHOR PANJARA POLE,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

9. In the case of Shri Parshwanath Bhakti Vihar Jain Trust vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) [2024] 166 taxmann.com 732 (Gujarat)[13-08-2024], the High Court held that where assessee-trust for past many years had substantially satisfied conditions for claiming exemption under section 11 and had also explained reason for delay in filing Form

SHRI VIJAY CHAMPAK PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

9. Shri Rasesh Shah, ld. Counsel for the assessee, begins by pointing out that there is inconsistency in the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer under 4 Vijay Champak Patel Assessment Year: 2011-12 section 143(3) of the Act and the penalty order framed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, so far the charge

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs. M/S SURAT LIFE CARE PVT. LTD., SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S. Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3, Unique Hospital, Opp. Kiran Motor, Surat Nr. Sosyo Circle Lane, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarcs8396M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By 14/12/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

disallowed for want of supporting documents and the unaccounted income disclosed during survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act on 04.03.2014 of Rs.1,95,00,000/- and should be taxed u/s 160/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 M/s Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd. 115BBE of the Act. It was also reminded to the assessee that the benefit of section 139(5) of the Act cannot

GUJARAT MITRA PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32 & 33/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Mitra Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Ward No.10, Soni Faliya, Chowk Centralized Processing Center, Vs. Bazar, Surat-395003 Bangalore-560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 2528 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

139(1) of the Act, the assessee(s) would be entitled to deduction under Section 43-B on actual payment basis and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This proviso, however, did not apply to the contribution made by the assessee(s) to the labour welfare funds. To this effect, the first proviso stood introduced with effect

GUJARAT MITRA PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32 & 33/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Mitra Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Ward No.10, Soni Faliya, Chowk Centralized Processing Center, Vs. Bazar, Surat-395003 Bangalore-560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 2528 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

139(1) of the Act, the assessee(s) would be entitled to deduction under Section 43-B on actual payment basis and such deduction would be admissible for the accounting year. This proviso, however, did not apply to the contribution made by the assessee(s) to the labour welfare funds. To this effect, the first proviso stood introduced with effect