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

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 claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(iii), the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 19

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 claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(iii), the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 19

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 claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(iii), the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 19

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 claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(iii), the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 19

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

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

disallowed the claim of Rs.1.93 crores as capital expenditure and accumulation of Rs.41.74 lakh by taking view that the main objective of the assessee was the development of Gem and Jewellery Parks, which has not been completed in a decade’s time. Further the assessee failed to focus on advancement, protection and development of trade and commerce and industry

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

disallowed the claim of Rs.1.93 crores as capital expenditure and accumulation of Rs.41.74 lakh by taking view that the main objective of the assessee was the development of Gem and Jewellery Parks, which has not been completed in a decade’s time. Further the assessee failed to focus on advancement, protection and development of trade and commerce and industry

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 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

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

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD.),VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for A

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.2886/Ahd/2010, 794/Ahd/2014 & 1769/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 बनाम M/S. Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Addl. Cit Range- ( Now Known As M/S. Bayer Vapi Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Private Limited) 306/3,Phase-Ii Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyer - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O. P. Singh Cit (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 26.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Three Appeals For The Assessment Year 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Dated 28.07.2010 & Dated 15.01.2014 Respectively Under The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] On The Direction Of Drp By The Addl. Cit Range-Vapi Range Vapi (Herein After Referred As The Ao) & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Dated 29.04.2016. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed As Under: It(Tp)A No.2886/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 2006-07/ By The Assessee: 2. Ground Nos.1 Is General In Nature & Do Not Require Adjudication.

2 to section 10B defines export turnover consideration in respect of export by the undertaking of articles or things, computer software received in or brought to in India by the assessee in convertible foreign exchange in accordance with sub-section (3), but does not include freight, telecommunication or insurance charges attributable to delivery of the articles or things or computer