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

section 80P(2), which clearly shows the intention of legislature to allow deduction of interest from co-operative society only or such language was not considered by High Court. Though, we appreciate the forceful submissions of ld Sr DR of the revenue on this issue, while defending the order of assessing officer. However, such submissions

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

section 80P(2), which clearly shows the intention of legislature to allow deduction of interest from co-operative society only or such language was not considered by High Court. Though, we appreciate the forceful submissions of ld Sr DR of the revenue on this issue, while defending the order of assessing officer. However, such submissions

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

section 80P(2), which clearly shows the intention of legislature to allow deduction of interest from co-operative society only or such language was not considered by High Court. Though, we appreciate the forceful submissions of ld Sr DR of the revenue on this issue, while defending the order of assessing officer. However, such submissions

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), a proviso is inserted therein. As per said proviso, the expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of total income shall not exceed the total expenditure claimed by the assessee. In our view, the words “expenditure incurred” in section 14A must be read in context with scheme of the Act and if so read

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), a proviso is inserted therein. As per said proviso, the expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of total income shall not exceed the total expenditure claimed by the assessee. In our view, the words “expenditure incurred” in section 14A must be read in context with scheme of the Act and if so read

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

19 as per para 2 of the letter. As said earlier, the abovesaid plot no. 270 was purchased jointly by the assessee and Shri Ankin S Zaveri both having share 1/2. The second co-owner Ankin S Zaveri sold his 1/2 share in F.Y.2010-11 for consideration of Rs.24,10,000/-. The document was executed for purchase of 1/2 share

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

19 such parties. The Assessing Officer by disallowed the interest payment by treating as it was bogus. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the additions of unsecured loan as well as interest disallowances were deleted. 11. We find that Ld. CIT(A) on considering the submission of assessee that addition of unsecured loan is not based of any incriminating material

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

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

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

SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

SHREE VIMALJIN RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE TRUST,VAPI vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 239/Srt/2021 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Vimaljin Religious Charitable Trust, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, 102, Shantinath Apartment, Nehru Street, Bangaluru. Vapi-396191. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalts6046F

disallowed the claim of expenditure by taking view that the assessee failed to produce the registration certificate under section 12AA of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) also held that the assessee would have obtained the copy of registration from the office of Commissioner(Exemption) or to apply it again, which the assessee has not done. 11. Before us, the ld.AR

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that after the agreement with GIDC was entered into on 15 December 2006 the appellant had not developed any new infrastructure facility as envisaged under section 80IA(4)(i)(b) of the Act and only operated/ maintained an old infrastructure

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that after the agreement with GIDC was entered into on 15 December 2006 the appellant had not developed any new infrastructure facility as envisaged under section 80IA(4)(i)(b) of the Act and only operated/ maintained an old infrastructure

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that after the agreement with GIDC was entered into on 15 December 2006 the appellant had not developed any new infrastructure facility as envisaged under section 80IA(4)(i)(b) of the Act and only operated/ maintained an old infrastructure

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that after the agreement with GIDC was entered into on 15 December 2006 the appellant had not developed any new infrastructure facility as envisaged under section 80IA(4)(i)(b) of the Act and only operated/ maintained an old infrastructure

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that after the agreement with GIDC was entered into on 15 December 2006 the appellant had not developed any new infrastructure facility as envisaged under section 80IA(4)(i)(b) of the Act and only operated/ maintained an old infrastructure

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that after the agreement with GIDC was entered into on 15 December 2006 the appellant had not developed any new infrastructure facility as envisaged under section 80IA(4)(i)(b) of the Act and only operated/ maintained an old infrastructure