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

VI, Baroda [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 03.03.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-08. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of income -tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] erred in upholding the re-opening of the assessment under section 148 of the Income

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

VI, Baroda [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 03.03.2014 for assessment year (AY) 2007-08. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of income -tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] erred in upholding the re-opening of the assessment under section 148 of the Income

N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

2,43,27,693 Total 7,76,39,597 19. The learned senior counsel further submits that the assessee filed appeal before Tribunal and the issue was remitted back the issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after obtaining remand report from AO. On above issue, the assessee filed his reply along with evidences including complete

THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VAPI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

2,43,27,693 Total 7,76,39,597 19. The learned senior counsel further submits that the assessee filed appeal before Tribunal and the issue was remitted back the issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after obtaining remand report from AO. On above issue, the assessee filed his reply along with evidences including complete

NA vs. ARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN,NAVSARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.272/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman, V The Income Tax Officer, Agiary Street, Malesar, Navsari S Exemption Ward, Surat. Taluka, Navsari – 396 445. . [Pan: Aaatn 6124 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri H.R.Vepari – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Vaishav – Cit - Dr

Disallowance of exemption u/s.11(1)(d) of the Act: ON the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the CIT(A) was not justified in not granting exemption u/s.11(1)(d) of the Act in respect of voluntary contributions received as forming part of corpus trust or received for specific purposes. (V) Miscellaneous: The appellant craves leave

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BARDOLI VIBHAG GRAM VIKAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

24 of the appellate order. After considering the submission of the appellant, the CIT(A), at para 4.5 to 5 of the appellate order, has given his findings and allowed appeal of the assessee. Ground Nos.1 to 5 were in respect of disallowance of interest u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that the interest received

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BARDOLI VIBHAG GRAM VIKAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

24 of the appellate order. After considering the submission of the appellant, the CIT(A), at para 4.5 to 5 of the appellate order, has given his findings and allowed appeal of the assessee. Ground Nos.1 to 5 were in respect of disallowance of interest u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that the interest received

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BARDOLI VIBHAG GRAM VIKAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

24 of the appellate order. After considering the submission of the appellant, the CIT(A), at para 4.5 to 5 of the appellate order, has given his findings and allowed appeal of the assessee. Ground Nos.1 to 5 were in respect of disallowance of interest u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that the interest received

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1 )(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BARDOLI VIBHAG GRAM VIKAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

24 of the appellate order. After considering the submission of the appellant, the CIT(A), at para 4.5 to 5 of the appellate order, has given his findings and allowed appeal of the assessee. Ground Nos.1 to 5 were in respect of disallowance of interest u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that the interest received

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

VI, Baroda (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 10/11/2014 and 25/03/2015 for the Assessment years (AY) 2007-08 to 2011-12 respectively. In all these appeals, the assessee has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all these years are almost similar, except variation of disallowances/additions, therefore, with the consent of parties, all these appeals were clubbed, heard

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

VI, Baroda (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 10/11/2014 and 25/03/2015 for the Assessment years (AY) 2007-08 to 2011-12 respectively. In all these appeals, the assessee has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all these years are almost similar, except variation of disallowances/additions, therefore, with the consent of parties, all these appeals were clubbed, heard

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

VI, Baroda (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 10/11/2014 and 25/03/2015 for the Assessment years (AY) 2007-08 to 2011-12 respectively. In all these appeals, the assessee has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all these years are almost similar, except variation of disallowances/additions, therefore, with the consent of parties, all these appeals were clubbed, heard

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

VI, Baroda (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 10/11/2014 and 25/03/2015 for the Assessment years (AY) 2007-08 to 2011-12 respectively. In all these appeals, the assessee has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all these years are almost similar, except variation of disallowances/additions, therefore, with the consent of parties, all these appeals were clubbed, heard

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

VI, Baroda (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 10/11/2014 and 25/03/2015 for the Assessment years (AY) 2007-08 to 2011-12 respectively. In all these appeals, the assessee has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all these years are almost similar, except variation of disallowances/additions, therefore, with the consent of parties, all these appeals were clubbed, heard

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

VI, Baroda (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 10/11/2014 and 25/03/2015 for the Assessment years (AY) 2007-08 to 2011-12 respectively. In all these appeals, the assessee has raised certain common grounds of appeal. Facts in all these years are almost similar, except variation of disallowances/additions, therefore, with the consent of parties, all these appeals were clubbed, heard

THE WANKA VIVIDH KARYAKARI SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LTD,TAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2 BARDOLI, BARDOLI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.470/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) The Wanka Vividh Karyakari Seva Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Vs At & Po Wanka, Taluka-Nizar, Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Tapi-394370 Building, Opp. Jalaram Akshaymodi40@Gmail.Com Temple, Station Road, Pan No: Aahft 1009 K Bardoli-394601 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

24-07-2015] wherein it was held that filing of return of income is directly and not mandatory for claiming deduction under relevant Section of Chapter-VI-A (Section 80P). The making of claim because at the stage of assessment before completion of assessment, meets the directory requirement of making of claim in the return of income

SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

24)(x) of the Act. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above addition made by the Assessing Officer may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(2), Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Z&E, R.S. Vs. Room No. 205, Aayakar No. 120, Tal: Jolva-394305, Dist- Surat. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Surat. Appellant Respondednt M/S Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T. Block No. 129 & 175, Plot No. Circle-4, Vs. Z&E, Jolva Rs No. 120 & 120/1, Surat. Surat-394305. Pan: Aabcd 8894 P Appellant Respondednt

24)(x) of the Act. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above addition made by the Assessing Officer may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

24. Clear legislative intent of the relevant provisions and unambiguous language of the circulars with reference to the amendments to Section 36 of the Act demonstrate that the deduction on account of provisions for bad and doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia) is distinct and independent of the provisions of Section 36(1)(vii) relating to allowance