SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3), the ld AR for the assessee submits that ld PCIT in the for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Satyam Textile Park show cause notice noted that although, assessee worked out the net profit of Rs. 2,27,88,724/- but, in the IDS disclosure, the assessee made disclosure

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3), the ld AR for the assessee submits that ld PCIT in the for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Satyam Textile Park show cause notice noted that although, assessee worked out the net profit of Rs. 2,27,88,724/- but, in the IDS disclosure, the assessee made disclosure

MANJU DEVI BEGANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

207/- on\naccount of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act.\n3.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject,\nthe Ld. assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 76,24,846/- on account\nof bogus agricultural income as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act.\n4.\nOn the facts

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowances / additions under section 37,40A(3), 40(a)(ia) 68 and other provisions of the Act. The AO has not examined the payment of interest in cash and sources of cash payment made for purchase of land in village Kathore is also not examined either in the hand of firm or partners. Further arrangement regarding use of partners land

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowances / additions under section 37,40A(3), 40(a)(ia) 68 and other provisions of the Act. The AO has not examined the payment of interest in cash and sources of cash payment made for purchase of land in village Kathore is also not examined either in the hand of firm or partners. Further arrangement regarding use of partners land

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowances / additions under section 37,40A(3), 40(a)(ia) 68 and other provisions of the Act. The AO has not examined the payment of interest in cash and sources of cash payment made for purchase of land in village Kathore is also not examined either in the hand of firm or partners. Further arrangement regarding use of partners land

M/S NILKANTH STONE INDUSTRIES, VALSAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.386/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Shop No.A-1/2/3, Nilkanth Of Income Tax, Valsad. Residency, B/H Old Jakarta Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad. [Pan: Aajfn 5653 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Surji Chheda - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 27.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) Dated 27.03.2018, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Vide His Application Dated 16.08.2018 Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Has Erred In Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Which Was Without Jurisdiction & The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On All Issues Discussed In Revision Order & Has Erred In Setting It Aside For Fresh

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of Rs.37,229/-. However, in the entire assessment there is no reference about the issue revised by ld. PCIT, which are impugned before us in ground No. 5 & 8 (supra). During the course of hearing the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that during the assessment, all details related to advance given to Amrutbhai

SHRI NEHRUNAGAR CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.507/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed the deduction to the tune of Rs.28,61,379/-. 13. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the assessing officer in respect of deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(d) for interest income received of Rs.26,48,946/-, observing as follows: “Hence, the case laws quoted by the assessee are contradicted and superseded by the above

PRIME HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS,DAMAN vs. ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prime Health Care Products, Vs. The Dcit, Vapi Circle, Plot No.198 To 207, Dabhel Indl. Co. Vapi. Society Ltd., Village. Dabhel, Daman, Daman-396210. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp6232C

207, Dabhel Indl. Co. Vapi. Society Ltd., Village. Dabhel, Daman, Daman-396210. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADFP6232C Assessee by Shri Nitin Mehta, AR Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13/12/2022 06/01/2023 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining

M/S. BARDOLI VIBHAG GRAM VIKAS CO.-OP.CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE PR.. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, -2, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.283/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bardoli Vibhag Gram Vikas Co.Op. Vs The Principal Credit Society Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Sahakar Sadan, Station Road, Tax-2, Surat. Bardoli, Surat. [Pan: Aaatb 8135 B] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mitesh Modi – Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 29.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 12.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit”, Passed Under Section 263 Of Income- Tax Act (Act) Dated 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facility To Its Members By Accepting The Deposits From Members & Lending Money Them Too. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2014-15 On 21.08.2013 Declaring Nil Income. In The Computation Of Income, The Assessee Claimed Deduction 80P Of The Act Of Rs.7,03,56,728/-. The Return Of Income Was Bardoli Vibhag Gram Vikas Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Pcit

section 80P(2)(d) in its show cause notice dated 06.03.2019. The assessee in its reply dated 7.03.2019 clearly explained that the issue was examined by Assessing Officer and that the assessment order is not erroneous. The assessee also explained that similar disallowances /issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal

M/S ALTHAN BHATAR URBAN CO.OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD/,,SURAT vs. PR.CIT-1,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.151/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Althan Bhatar Urban Co-Op. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-1, 123, 1St Floor, Aayakar Credit Society Ltd., Shop No. 5, Anand Apartment Nr. Jariwala Stores, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Bhatar Road, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaa 7721 R (Appellant ) (Respondent)

section 80P(2)(d) in its show cause notice dated 06.03.2019. The assessee in its reply dated 7.03.2019 clearly explained that the issue was examined by Assessing Officer and that the assessment order is not erroneous. The assessee also explained that similar disallowances /issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal

SHREE MADHI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shree Madhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Pr.C.I.T.-1 Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Room No. 123, 1St Floor, Vs. P.O. Box No. 5, At & Post- Madhi, Aayakar Bhavan, Tal: Bardoli, Surat-394340. Majuragate, Surat. Pan: Aaaas 4732 J Appellant Respondednt

section 80P(2)(d) in its show cause notice dated 06.03.2019. The assessee in its reply dated 7.03.2019 clearly explained that the issue was examined by Assessing Officer and that the assessment order is not erroneous. The assessee also explained that similar disallowances /issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal

SHRI NEHRUNAGAR CO. OP HOUSING SOCIETY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent)

207 CTR 462 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer

SHRI NEHRUNAGAR CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY, SURAT,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1(3)(5), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

207 CTR 462 (Madras) held that when two views are ITA.506/SRT/2023/AY.2020-21 Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Society possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have

BARDOLI JANTA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,,BARDOLI vs. PR.CIT-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed on the primary submissions of the ld AR for the assessee

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bardoli Janta Cooperative Credit The Principal Commissioner Of Society Ltd., Income Tax-2, Surat. Vs 94, Mudit Palace, Nr. Janta Society, Station Road, Bardoli, Surat – 394 601. Pan: Aaaab 1355 J Email Id; Srshethtax@Gmail.Com Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 80P(2)(d) in its show cause notice dated 06.03.2019. The assessee in its reply dated 7.03.2019 clearly explained that the issue was examined by Assessing Officer and that the assessment order is not erroneous. The assessee also explained that similar disallowances /issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal

SHRI HIMMATBHAI MOHANBHAI KHENI,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, SURAT

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 410, Kashi Plaza, Majura Gate, Income Tax, Circle-(9), Surat Surat. [Pan: Abqpk7840K] Appellant Respondednt

section 54F was also disallowed. On further appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld. Thus, further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before us. 4 Assessment Year.2010-11 Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni 3. We have heard the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee and ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the order

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

207 & 208 of the paper book), no addition was made by the assessing officer. Therefore assessment order is not erroneous, as the provisions of section 56(2)(x) were duly considered for the balance 1/2 share of property. So far as the original 1/2 share of the property is concerned, the payment was made by cheques

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

disallowing the claim of the appellant. Circular No.29 of 2016, dated 18.12.2016 (F.No. 142/8/2016-TPL) reads as follows- "Question No. 2: Where the amount declared under the scheme for an earlier assessment year can be taken into account to explain the transaction(s) in the assessment proceedings for subsequent years(s)? Answer: As per section 189 of the Finance