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

4%. The Assessing Officer on the basis of his observation made disallowance of difference i.e., @ 3% and worked out the same at Rs.22,06,072/-. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that there is no direct nexus between the interest bearing loans with that of loan advanced by assessee. Most of the loans were advanced prior to assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), SURAT vs. MANISH SUMATILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Manish Sumatilal Shah, Circle- 2(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, South Ridge Road, Vs. Surat. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adrps 1088 E Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

disallowed the deduction under Section 54F by taking a view that the 11 ACIT Vs Manish Sumatilal Shah assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act in respect of one residential house. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that all four residential flats are a single residential house. All four flats were merged

KIRTIKUMAR NAGINDAS SHAH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.535/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Kiritkumar Nagindas Shah, Vs. The Ito, A-1103, Regent Residency, Near Ward – 2(3)(6), Saurabh Society, Pal, Surat Surat – 395009, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anjps9031P (Appellant) (Respondent)

4,01,749/- and unsecured loan of Rs.1,98,48,805/- and claimed interest expenses of Rs.8,08,065/- in profit and loss account. The exempted investment is attributable towards exempted investment. Accordingly, the assessing officer worked out the disallowance under section 14A of the Act, as follows: WORKING OF INTEREST DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A:- ITA.535/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Kiritkumar Nagindas Shah Therefore

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 28.01.2025 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2022-23 respectively. Since facts are same, with consent of both parties, the cases were heard together

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 28.01.2025 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2022-23 respectively. Since facts are same, with consent of both parties, the cases were heard together

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 28.01.2025 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2022-23 respectively. Since facts are same, with consent of both parties, the cases were heard together

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 28.01.2025 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment years (AYs) 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2022-23 respectively. Since facts are same, with consent of both parties, the cases were heard together

SURESHKUMAR MAVJIBHAI BHINGARADIA, INDIVIDUAL,BHARUCH vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Sureshkumar Mavjibhai Bhingaradia, Vs. The Acit, Plot No.3441/B, Near Pci Chowkdi, Circle – 2(1)(1), Gidc Estate, Bharuch - 393002 Vadodara "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acqpb6047G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2025

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 01.03.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. SHRI AMRUTLAL BABALDAS PATEL,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel, Income Tax, Circle-2, Vs I) A/96, Jalkamal Apartment, Bharuch. Near Manav Mandir, Gidc, Ankleshwar, Gujarat – 392002. Ii) 32, Surdhara Bunglow, Near Sai Hospital, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aebpp 2999 E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Jimit Shah – Ca Revenue By Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.Dr 22/02/2022 Date Of Hearing 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara Dated 29.04.2016 For The A.Y. 2012-13. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Development Expenses Of Rs.1,79,19,550/- Without Appreciating That The Purported Expenditure Was On Account Of Contractual Payment To Four Related Parties. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Payment Of The Labour Expenses To The Contractors Were Held Up For Three Years Of Sale Of Land & Payment Was Made In The Calendar Year 2015 Only After The A.O. Sought Proof Of Payment. 1.2 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That Contractors Of The Assessee Have Also Held Up Payment To Their Creditors For A Long Span Of Three Years, Which Is Not Acceptable On Any Surmise. Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel

250/- respectively. Thus, the contract had made part payment to its labour, but transport charges of Rs.10,97,225/- sundry creditors for transportation is to Rs.9,52,880/- which is also impossible looking at the nature of the work. 4. The AO further noted that development expenditure is apparently bogus, accordingly vide order sheet dated 12.02.2015, the assessee was asked

BEGANI DYEING MILLS PVT.LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE PR.CIT., CIRCLE-1,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.404/Srt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Begani Dyeing Mills Pvt. Vs The Principal Ltd., Commissioner Of Income 11 To 15, Tara Industrial Estate, Tax-1, Surat. Opp. Gangdhi Kutir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Aaacb 9634 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ar राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Shri S.T.Bidari – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-1, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” , Passed Under Section 263 Dated 07.12.2018 For The A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Cit Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S . 263 By Invoking Of Section 263 Of The Act, Although The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

250/-, thus, total disallowance worked out at Rs.2,35,039/- in assessment order dated 30.01.2015. The case was again reopened under section 147 of the Act on the issue of deduction of section 80IA of the Act. The AO after completing required formality and giving opportunity made disallowance of Rs.3,73,098/- under section 80IA of the Act in assessment

BALA FILLING STATION,BHARUCH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shripawan Singh& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.822/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybridhearing) Bala Filling Station Vs. The Acit, Opp. Geb Substation, Jambusar Circle - 1, Road,Jambusar - 392150, Gujarat Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagfb8418F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’),dated 10.06.2024by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’]for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assesseeare as under: “1.The Appellant prays and an appeal that the learned CIT Appeals NFAC has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT vs. ENVIRO CONTROL PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.274 & 307/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Surat, Room No.108, 1St Floor, Maharshtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat- Aayakar Bhawan, Majura 395007 Gate, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 8700 C (Assessee) (Respondent)

4 Value of assets as on 31/03/2012 78,68,01,989 5 Value of assets as on 31.03.2013 1,01,21,81,590 6 Average value of assets 89,94,91,789 7 Interest expense 1,31,41,414 8 Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D 9,69,564 9 Average value of investment x interest expense

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT vs. ENVIRO CONTROL PVT. LTD., , SURAT

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.274 & 307/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Surat, Room No.108, 1St Floor, Maharshtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat- Aayakar Bhawan, Majura 395007 Gate, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 8700 C (Assessee) (Respondent)

4 Value of assets as on 31/03/2012 78,68,01,989 5 Value of assets as on 31.03.2013 1,01,21,81,590 6 Average value of assets 89,94,91,789 7 Interest expense 1,31,41,414 8 Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D 9,69,564 9 Average value of investment x interest expense

SHRI VIJAY CHAMPAK PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

4) of section 54F of the Act, such deposit has to be made in the Capital Gains Account Scheme before the due date of filing of return of income for that year. As per explanation (2) to sub- section (1) of section 139 of the Act, the due date of filing return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 was 30/09/2011

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4. The Assessing Officer after referring the provision of section 36(1)(viia) noted that as per this provision, the deduction is allowable @ 7.5% of gross total income before claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and 10% of aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner. The deduction as computed would

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4. The Assessing Officer after referring the provision of section 36(1)(viia) noted that as per this provision, the deduction is allowable @ 7.5% of gross total income before claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and 10% of aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner. The deduction as computed would

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4. The Assessing Officer after referring the provision of section 36(1)(viia) noted that as per this provision, the deduction is allowable @ 7.5% of gross total income before claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and 10% of aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner. The deduction as computed would

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4. The Assessing Officer after referring the provision of section 36(1)(viia) noted that as per this provision, the deduction is allowable @ 7.5% of gross total income before claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and 10% of aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner. The deduction as computed would

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4. The Assessing Officer after referring the provision of section 36(1)(viia) noted that as per this provision, the deduction is allowable @ 7.5% of gross total income before claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and 10% of aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner. The deduction as computed would