BALMUKUND M VAISHNAV,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, and since the ITA Nos. 204 &205/SRT/2019 Balmukund M. Vaishnav assessee failed to explain that the purchases worth Rs.28,81,47,552/- are genuine purchases therefore appropriate addition on account of bogus purchase of Rs.28,81,47,552/- u/s 69C of the Act was made by the assessing officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MAHAVEER SHANTILAL JAIN, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Disallowance confirmed 2013-14 Rs.7,37,44,213/- Rs.36,87,210/- 12. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.” 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us and assessee has also filed additional ground under Rule 11 read with Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, which is reproduced below for ready

ACIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, SURAT

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) Asst. Commissioner Of The Surat District Cricket Income-Tax (Exemptions), Association, Lalbhai Vs Circle-2, 6Th Floor, Room Contractor Stadium, Surat No.607, Aayakar Bhavan Dumas Road, Vesu, (Vejalpur), Prahlad Nagar Surat-395007 Road, Nr. Sachin Tower, Pan : Aaatt 6114 A Satellite,Ahmedabad-380 015 Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 2(15) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee is required to be assessed under the normal provision of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the capital expenditure of Rs.2.19 crores was also not allowed. Similarly, the ground renovation of Rs.12.50 lakh 7 The Surat Dist. Cricket Association was also not allowed and added to the total income of assessee

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

2)(ii). The ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that the contention of the ld AR of the assessee that assessee has sufficient interest free funds available with him has no applicability so far as disallowance under Rule 8D is concerned as such clause has been done away from the Rule 8D with effect from 01.06.2016. 8. In rejoinder

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), SURAT vs. PANDESARA GREEN ENVIRONMENT WATER WELFARE COOP. SOCIETY LIMITED, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act of Rs. 1.49 crore by taking a view that Sutex Cooperative Bank is not covered by the provisions of Section 80P(2)(d) as it is not a cooperative society. The assessee filed copy of registration certificate of Sutex Cooperative bank as a society. The ld. CIT(A) further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), SURAT vs. PANDESARA GREEN ENVIRONMENT WATER WELFARE COOP. SOCIETY LIMITED, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act of Rs. 1.49 crore by taking a view that Sutex Cooperative Bank is not covered by the provisions of Section 80P(2)(d) as it is not a cooperative society. The assessee filed copy of registration certificate of Sutex Cooperative bank as a society. The ld. CIT(A) further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), SURAT vs. PANDESARA GREEN ENVIRONMENT WATER WELFARE COOP. SOCIETY LIMITED, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act of Rs. 1.49 crore by taking a view that Sutex Cooperative Bank is not covered by the provisions of Section 80P(2)(d) as it is not a cooperative society. The assessee filed copy of registration certificate of Sutex Cooperative bank as a society. The ld. CIT(A) further

M/S. MAROLI BAZAR VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE , NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

disallowed the rest of it which was referable to the non-taxable income, being exempt under section 10(29) of the Act. The Apex Court after considering its decisions in the cases of Indian Bank Ltd. (supra), Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra), Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 563 (SC) as well as the decision of the Punjab

KHAREL VIBHAG V. V. K.S. M. LIMITED,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

disallowed the rest of it which was referable to the non-taxable income, being exempt under section 10(29) of the Act. The Apex Court after considering its decisions in the cases of Indian Bank Ltd. (supra), Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra), Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 563 (SC) as well as the decision of the Punjab

KHAREL VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

disallowed the rest of it which was referable to the non-taxable income, being exempt under section 10(29) of the Act. The Apex Court after considering its decisions in the cases of Indian Bank Ltd. (supra), Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra), Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 563 (SC) as well as the decision of the Punjab

MAROLI BAZAAR VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.173/Srt/2017 & 199/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S.Maroli Bazar Vibhag Vividh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ks.M.L. Ward-2, Navsari. At & Post – Maroli Bazar, Tal-Jalalpore, Dist-Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam 1095 J (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.200/Srt/2018 & 201/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kharel Vibhag V.V.K.S.M. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income At & Post – Kharel, Tax, Navsari. Navsari. & The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari.

disallowed the rest of it which was referable to the non-taxable income, being exempt under section 10(29) of the Act. The Apex Court after considering its decisions in the cases of Indian Bank Ltd. (supra), Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. ( supra), Waterfall Estates Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 563 (SC) as well as the decision of the Punjab

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act of Rs.4,02,379/-.” 14. Further vide application dated 03.08.2021the assessee has raised the following additional ground:- “1. That on facts and in law, and in the alternate and without prejudice, deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act ought

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act of Rs.4,02,379/-.” 14. Further vide application dated 03.08.2021the assessee has raised the following additional ground:- “1. That on facts and in law, and in the alternate and without prejudice, deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act ought

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-6,, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act of Rs.4,02,379/-.” 14. Further vide application dated 03.08.2021the assessee has raised the following additional ground:- “1. That on facts and in law, and in the alternate and without prejudice, deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act ought

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act of Rs.4,02,379/-.” 14. Further vide application dated 03.08.2021the assessee has raised the following additional ground:- “1. That on facts and in law, and in the alternate and without prejudice, deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act ought

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

2) and duo moto disallowance was made to avoid the penalty. The assessee itself accepted that they have incurred expenses to earn exempt income, so the applicability of section 14A is not in dispute, which is stand accepted while filing revised computation of income. The ld. CIT(A) submits that order of ld. CIT(A) is contrary

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

2) and duo moto disallowance was made to avoid the penalty. The assessee itself accepted that they have incurred expenses to earn exempt income, so the applicability of section 14A is not in dispute, which is stand accepted while filing revised computation of income. The ld. CIT(A) submits that order of ld. CIT(A) is contrary

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

15-16 & 17-18 Dineshchandra D Koradia, Nagjibhai M Sakariya & Sh. Hareshbhai M Sakariya disallowance under section 14A, therefore, with the consent of parties, all the appeals were clubbed, heard and decided by a consolidated order to avoid the conflicting decisions. For appreciation of facts, the facts in assessment year 2010-11 in IT(SS)A No.01/SRT/2021 was treated