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

section 251(1)(a) and once an assessment order is brought before the authority, his competence is not restricted to examining only those aspects of the assessment about which the assessee make a grievance and ranges over the whole assessment to correct the Assessing Officer not only with regard to a matter raised by the assessee in appeal but also

JAYSHRI GOPALLAL MAHARAJSHRINI SURAT SRUSTI TRUST,SURAT vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 12A(1)(b). In view of the above, the grounds of appeal are DISMISSED. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order passed u/s 250 r.w.s. 251 of the Act.” 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) disallowing

GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel contended that there should be finality in this assessee`s matter under consideration otherwise there will be never ending process, if the assessee`s matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. The Ld. Counsel submitted before us the following documents and evidences for AY.2007-08: Gandevi Taluka

GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel contended that there should be finality in this assessee`s matter under consideration otherwise there will be never ending process, if the assessee`s matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. The Ld. Counsel submitted before us the following documents and evidences for AY.2007-08: Gandevi Taluka

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NA vs. ARIVS.GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel contended that there should be finality in this assessee`s matter under consideration otherwise there will be never ending process, if the assessee`s matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. The Ld. Counsel submitted before us the following documents and evidences for AY.2007-08: Gandevi Taluka

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NA vs. ARIVS.GANDEVI TALUKA KHEDUT SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

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

section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel contended that there should be finality in this assessee`s matter under consideration otherwise there will be never ending process, if the assessee`s matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer. The Ld. Counsel submitted before us the following documents and evidences for AY.2007-08: Gandevi Taluka

SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEWA MANDAL TRUST,UNA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.204/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Sewa Vs. The Ito, Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘Nfac), Delhi, In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036051308(1) Dated 30.09.2021, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

disallowance of depreciation at Rs. 3,80,692 on the ground that machinery were not put to use during the year. The Assessing Officer further allowed additional depreciation on xerox machine and also payment of provident fund under section 43B of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and also imposed penalty relying on the decision

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

disallowance made by the AO is confirmed; while rejecting the appellant's ground of appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. Learned Counsel for the assessee argued that some of the creditors have been paid during the assessment year itself, however some

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance was deleted for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 by following the order of A.Y. 2011-12. We further find that the Revenue has challenged the order of the Tribunal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by raising question of law as reproduced as under: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. SHAH VIRCHAND GOVANJI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance was deleted for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 by following the order of A.Y. 2011-12. We further find that the Revenue has challenged the order of the Tribunal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by raising question of law as reproduced as under: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

UMESHKUMAR P BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

Section 68 comes into play where any sum is credited in account which is not explained by assessee and does, not apply when goods or services is purchased on credit & an entry is made creating the liability in the account of supplier. When the purchases & sales are not doubted, the outstanding creditors cannot, be added u/s 68. In this case

ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI UMESH P BANSAL, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

Section 68 comes into play where any sum is credited in account which is not explained by assessee and does, not apply when goods or services is purchased on credit & an entry is made creating the liability in the account of supplier. When the purchases & sales are not doubted, the outstanding creditors cannot, be added u/s 68. In this case

ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI UMESH P BANSAL, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

Section 68 comes into play where any sum is credited in account which is not explained by assessee and does, not apply when goods or services is purchased on credit & an entry is made creating the liability in the account of supplier. When the purchases & sales are not doubted, the outstanding creditors cannot, be added u/s 68. In this case

UMESHKUMAR P BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

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

Section 68 comes into play where any sum is credited in account which is not explained by assessee and does, not apply when goods or services is purchased on credit & an entry is made creating the liability in the account of supplier. When the purchases & sales are not doubted, the outstanding creditors cannot, be added u/s 68. In this case

BASE INDUSTRIES LTD.,,U.T. OF DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Base Industries Ltd., I.T.O., Behind Hanuman Mandir, Nr. Canal, Ward-1, Vs. Demni Road, Dadra, Silvasa. Vapi. Pan No. Aaccr 6479 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

1,57,93,920/- (Rs. 2,16,73,750 – 58,79,833). The ld. CIT(A) not only confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer but made enhancement by taking a view that in A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee had shown gross profit of 6.88% and only 15% of purchases were disallowed and gross profit was made

SHRI VIMALCHAND JAIN,,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result the ground No

disallowance to only Rs.73,73,322/- " 10.7 In view of the above decision, the addition made by the AO @ 25% of bogus purchases is incorrect. Accordingly, as already stated enhancement notice u/s 251(1) r.w.s. 251(2) of the Act dated 19.02.2018 was issued to the address mentioned in form No. 35 and there has been no compliance by appellant/AR

MEGA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

Section 251(1)(a). 4. It is therefore prayed that above additions/disallowances made by the assessing officer and confirmed by learned CIT(A) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” Other grounds of appeal “1

M/S. RUCHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), , SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

1. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 80,811/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat was not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section