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

234B(3) of the Act, interest is chargeable on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of reassessment or recompilation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding

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

234B(3) of the Act, interest is chargeable on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of reassessment or recompilation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding

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

section 234B,234C & 234D, these grounds of appeals are consequential, therefore, the assessing officer is directed to recompute the interest accordingly. 17. Ground No. 12 & 16 are Pit covering expenses. The ld Senior Advocate for assessee submits that this ground of appeal is covered by the order of Tribunal in favour of assessee in assessees own case

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

section 234B,234C & 234D, these grounds of appeals are consequential, therefore, the assessing officer is directed to recompute the interest accordingly. 17. Ground No. 12 & 16 are Pit covering expenses. The ld Senior Advocate for assessee submits that this ground of appeal is covered by the order of Tribunal in favour of assessee in assessees own case

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

section 234B,234C & 234D, these grounds of appeals are consequential, therefore, the assessing officer is directed to recompute the interest accordingly. 17. Ground No. 12 & 16 are Pit covering expenses. The ld Senior Advocate for assessee submits that this ground of appeal is covered by the order of Tribunal in favour of assessee in assessees own case

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

section 234B,234C & 234D, these grounds of appeals are consequential, therefore, the assessing officer is directed to recompute the interest accordingly. 17. Ground No. 12 & 16 are Pit covering expenses. The ld Senior Advocate for assessee submits that this ground of appeal is covered by the order of Tribunal in favour of assessee in assessees own case

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

section 234B,234C & 234D, these grounds of appeals are consequential, therefore, the assessing officer is directed to recompute the interest accordingly. 17. Ground No. 12 & 16 are Pit covering expenses. The ld Senior Advocate for assessee submits that this ground of appeal is covered by the order of Tribunal in favour of assessee in assessees own case

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

section 234B,234C & 234D, these grounds of appeals are consequential, therefore, the assessing officer is directed to recompute the interest accordingly. 17. Ground No. 12 & 16 are Pit covering expenses. The ld Senior Advocate for assessee submits that this ground of appeal is covered by the order of Tribunal in favour of assessee in assessees own case

DHANSUKHLAL RAMANBHAI MALI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(3)(1), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Dhansukhlal Ramanbhai Mali, I.T.O., 10, Mali Faliya, Mota Varachha, Ward-2(3)(1), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Aqppm 7151 B Appellant Respondednt

disallowing claim of exemption U/s 54F of the Act from the income of Long Term Capital Gain received on sale of land at Mota Varachha, Surat though a residential house was constructed by utilizing sale consideration received on sale of land and thereby fulfilling all the relevant conditions as prescribed under Section 54F of the Act. On the facts

M/S. SHANGRILA LATEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Shangrila Latex Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Circle-4, C/O. B.M. Parekh & Co., 203, 2Nd Surat. Floor, Navjivan Society, Bldg. No. 03, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaics1479E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjay S. Kapadia, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2022 28/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 31.03.2014. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,63,65,889/- on account

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 28 but the disallowance of expenditure was done rightly applying principles laid down u/s 37 (1) of the Act. 5. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the submissions of the assessee that payment of final sugarcane price to the members after completion of the sugarcane season is consistently followed by the assessee society

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 28 but the disallowance of expenditure was done rightly applying principles laid down u/s 37 (1) of the Act. 5. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the submissions of the assessee that payment of final sugarcane price to the members after completion of the sugarcane season is consistently followed by the assessee society

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 28 but the disallowance of expenditure was done rightly applying principles laid down u/s 37 (1) of the Act. 5. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the submissions of the assessee that payment of final sugarcane price to the members after completion of the sugarcane season is consistently followed by the assessee society

SHRI BHADRESH KUMAR S. SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Meena

disallowing all these expenses. In view of the above, Ground Nos. 1 to 5 of the appeal of Assessee are dismissed. 7. On Ground No.6, assessee challenged the levy of interest under section 234B

SHRI GORDHANBHAI R. ASODARIA,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Gordhanbhai R. Asodaria, A.C.I.T., 8, Raghuvir Bunglow, City Light Road, Central Circle-3, Vs. Parle Point, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Abapa 6910 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

234B, 234C and 234D and when no such interest is chargeable. It may be deleted. 4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal before him challenging initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground

R.S. TRADELINK PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

234B, 234C is charged as per calculation given in ITNS-150 which is part of this order. Issue notice under section 271(l)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” From the above (A), (B) and (C) analysis it is abundantly clear that in the assessment order itself the assessing officer has made different charge

SAANIKA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and partly allowed set-aside for statistical purposes

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.208/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Saanika Industries Pvt. Ltd., V. Deputy Commissioner Of Block No. 1053, Village Tradekeshwar, Income-Tax, Near Hariyal Bus Stop, Tal- Mandvi, Circle -2(1)(2) Surat District-Surat 394230 Pan: Aajcs 6782P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. D.R. राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By 29.10.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 01.11.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Surat (In Short “Cit(A)”) Dated 07.12.2015 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Ground No. I- Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs. 10 Lakhs From M/S. Sadasukh Dealers Pvt. Ltd. , When The Amount Is Received By Account Payee Cheques & Confirmation, Bank Statement

disallowance so made by the AO are deleted. This ground is therefore, allowed. 9. Ground No. IV: regarding charging of interest under section 234A, 234B

M/S. DELUX DIAMONDS,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri C .M. Garg & Shri O. P. Meena

234B and 234C of the Act. 3. Ground no. 1 to 3 are interconnected and relates to addition of Rs. 1,41,28,605 made on account of bogus purchases, hence, these are being considered together. 4. Succinctly, facts as culled out from the orders of lower authorities are that the assessee is a partnership firm and had filed return

MANISH BHOGILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.687/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manish Bhogilal Shah The Income Tax Officer-3 बनाम/ 6/B, Crown Mansion Navsari – 396 445 V/S. Ground Floor Forjeet Street, Cross Lane, Mumbai – 400 026 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqps 6699 F (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08 /12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27 /02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Manish Bhogilal Shah Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2

234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ground 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming invocation of penalty provisions under Section 271AAC, 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Ground 9. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds