S J P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 to 3 of the appeal are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.430/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) S J P Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of E-3300, Radhakrishna Textile Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2) Vs Market, Ring Road, Surat- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, 395002 Income Tax Colony, Pan No. Aajcs 4313 C Athwa, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

3 relates to interest disallowances. The Ld. AR for the assessee at the beginning of hearing apprised about the fact that order of Ld.CIT(A) is ex parte and that the assessee has raised a specific ground against such ex parte order passed by Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR for the assessee instead of showing reasonable cause for non-filing written

PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 , BHARUCH

In the result, ground No. 4 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pragati Glass Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kharach, Kosamba (R.S), District Vs. Cir. 1, Bharuch-394120 Station Road, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aabcp 7377 H Appellant Respondent

section 14A. 13. In the result, the ground No. 3 raised by assessee is allowed. 14. Ground No. 4 relates to disallowance of various expenses to the extent of 10%. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee incurred total expenses of Rs.14,49,649/- on account of sales and business promotion office, miscellaneous expenses, labour expense

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

253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing in 49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid

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

253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing in 49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing in 49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing in 49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing in 49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid

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

253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing in 49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid

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

253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing in 49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid

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

253,400,000 3,400,000 250,000,000 231,975,000 18,025,000 2019 3 6.01% Bond maturing in 49,00,000 -1,,000,000 50,000,000 40,655,000 9,345,000 2028 Total(Rs) 504,960,000 4,960,000 500,000,000 446,330,000 53,670,000 11. On perusal of the aforesaid

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

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

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

253 ITR 749 [2002] 121 Taxman 43 (Guj), we find no fault in the findings of Ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, same is upheld. Consequently, this ground is dismissed. 68. Ground No. 3 states that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that expenditure incurred of Rs.1,43,200 on registration of trademark and reviewing the draft technology agreement was revenue

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

253 ITR 749 [2002] 121 Taxman 43 (Guj), we find no fault in the findings of Ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, same is upheld. Consequently, this ground is dismissed. 68. Ground No. 3 states that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that expenditure incurred of Rs.1,43,200 on registration of trademark and reviewing the draft technology agreement was revenue

SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA PROP. OF BRIGHT DIAMONDS,SURATY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

ITO, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order

PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA PROP. OF DEEKSHA TRADING ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), , SURAT

In the result the ground No

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

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.10.2021 vide ITA No.170/SRT/2021 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2013-14 made on the 29.11.2018. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order