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)(iii) (as does not exist on the statute book). We find that disallowance made by the Assessing Officer are strictly in accordance with the existing provision of Rule 8D2(ii). We further note that the figure of investment for earning exempt income as on 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2017 respectively, is not disputed by ld. AR for the assessee. Therefore

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

17. Moreover, we have seen that in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009- 10, 2010-11 and 2012-13, the similar disallowance under section 80P(2

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

17. Moreover, we have seen that in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009- 10, 2010-11 and 2012-13, the similar disallowance under section 80P(2

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

17. Moreover, we have seen that in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009- 10, 2010-11 and 2012-13, the similar disallowance under section 80P(2

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

disallowed the claim of Rs.4,02,379/- under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) in re-assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 16.12.2015. 17

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

disallowed the claim of Rs.4,02,379/- under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) in re-assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 16.12.2015. 17

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

disallowed the claim of Rs.4,02,379/- under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) in re-assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 16.12.2015. 17

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

disallowed the claim of Rs.4,02,379/- under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) in re-assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 16.12.2015. 17

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

17,214 2 Dividend from Mutual Funds 4,16,96,742 3 Long term capital gain 18,87,75,201 4 Profit from partnership firm 10(2A) 10,76,07,470 4. The Assessing Officer further noted that assessee has filed revised computation of income wherein assessee has made disallowance of Rs.4,59,140/- under section

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

17,214 2 Dividend from Mutual Funds 4,16,96,742 3 Long term capital gain 18,87,75,201 4 Profit from partnership firm 10(2A) 10,76,07,470 4. The Assessing Officer further noted that assessee has filed revised computation of income wherein assessee has made disallowance of Rs.4,59,140/- under section

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

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 as “lead” case

ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, SURAT vs. GUJARAT HIRA BOURSE, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

17-18) Gujarat Hira Bourse and no adverse inference of carrying out trade, commerce or business should be drawn in its case. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, does not attract in the present case of the assessee and therefore no disallowance

ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD, SURAT vs. GUJARAT HIRA BOURSE, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

17-18) Gujarat Hira Bourse and no adverse inference of carrying out trade, commerce or business should be drawn in its case. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, does not attract in the present case of the assessee and therefore no disallowance

SHRI KIRAN KASTURCHAND SHAH,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.282/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Kiran Kasturchand Shah, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat 235-236, Shankheshwar Complex, Kailash Nagar, Sagrampura, Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agzps1397K Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 24/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 06/06/2023

17. Therefore, we note that ld PCIT directed the assessing officer to examine the issue raised by him in his 263 order and the issues already considered by the assessing officer while framing the assessment order. According to us, such general direction is bad in law, and order of Ld. PCIT in respect of issues already examined by Assessing Officer

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

17(2). The reply of assessee was not accepted by assessing officer / CPC and made adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) by assessing total income of Rs. 31,14,303/- thereby disallowing

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

disallowing a part of claim which was carried in appeal before CIT(A), requirement of conditions stipulated by sub-section (2) of section 80-I was very much subject matter of appeal and merely because Commissioner took a different view, it would not be sufficient to permit Commissioner to exercise power under section 263. 14. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat

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

disallowing a part of claim which was carried in appeal before CIT(A), requirement of conditions stipulated by sub-section (2) of section 80-I was very much subject matter of appeal and merely because Commissioner took a different view, it would not be sufficient to permit Commissioner to exercise power under section 263. 14. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat

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

disallowing a part of claim which was carried in appeal before CIT(A), requirement of conditions stipulated by sub-section (2) of section 80-I was very much subject matter of appeal and merely because Commissioner took a different view, it would not be sufficient to permit Commissioner to exercise power under section 263. 14. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat