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

disallowed. 24. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the action of Assessing Officer was upheld in AY 2006-07. Further aggrieved assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 25. We have heard the submission of Shri Sourabh N. Suparkar Ld. Senior counsel for the assessee and Shri Abhishek Gautam, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue

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

disallowed. 24. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the action of Assessing Officer was upheld in AY 2006-07. Further aggrieved assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 25. We have heard the submission of Shri Sourabh N. Suparkar Ld. Senior counsel for the assessee and Shri Abhishek Gautam, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, 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

disallowed. 24. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the action of Assessing Officer was upheld in AY 2006-07. Further aggrieved assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 25. We have heard the submission of Shri Sourabh N. Suparkar Ld. Senior counsel for the assessee and Shri Abhishek Gautam, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue

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

disallowance of consequence interests is also affirm. This ground No.6 of Revenue is dismissed. 16. In the result, Revenue’s appeal in IT(SS)A No.01/SRT/2021 is dismissed. IT(SS)A No.09/SRT/2020 (for A.Y.2014-15) 17. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

disallowed 2007-08 50690 24496 23362 1134 2330 2642203 2008-09 50082 21729 23082 -1353 2673 -3616013 2009-10 55952 32361 25787 6574 3250 21364987 2010-11 57616 30204 26554 3650 3033 11070262 21. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that as he has worked out lower coal consumption of Unit-I in A.Y. 2007-08 at 2450 MT, whereas

N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

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

disallowed 2007-08 50690 24496 23362 1134 2330 2642203 2008-09 50082 21729 23082 -1353 2673 -3616013 2009-10 55952 32361 25787 6574 3250 21364987 2010-11 57616 30204 26554 3650 3033 11070262 21. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that as he has worked out lower coal consumption of Unit-I in A.Y. 2007-08 at 2450 MT, whereas

SANJIVKUMAR A. SHAH,VALSAD vs. I. T. OFFICE, VALSAD CIRCLE , VALSAD

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.187/Srt/2021 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sanjivkumar A Shah Income Tax Department, 4Th Floor, Amar Arcade, Valsad Circle, Valsad Vs Halar Road, Valsad-396001 -396001 Pan : Acpps 0794 L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

26,433/- comprising dividend and interest from tax free bonds and long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer also noted that opening and closing investment, which yielded exempt income, was of Rs.4.922 crores and Rs.6.506 crores respectively. The assessee was asked to furnish the working of suo motu disallowances as per Section

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of claim under section 80JJA of Act, though the years was eight year of business operation. The Hon’ble Court held that Tribunal committed no errors, not to speak of law in passing the impugned order. It was held that when the department thought fit to grant the deduction for four consecutive years, there was no reason to raise

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of claim under section 80JJA of Act, though the years was eight year of business operation. The Hon’ble Court held that Tribunal committed no errors, not to speak of law in passing the impugned order. It was held that when the department thought fit to grant the deduction for four consecutive years, there was no reason to raise

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of claim under section 80JJA of Act, though the years was eight year of business operation. The Hon’ble Court held that Tribunal committed no errors, not to speak of law in passing the impugned order. It was held that when the department thought fit to grant the deduction for four consecutive years, there was no reason to raise

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of claim under section 80JJA of Act, though the years was eight year of business operation. The Hon’ble Court held that Tribunal committed no errors, not to speak of law in passing the impugned order. It was held that when the department thought fit to grant the deduction for four consecutive years, there was no reason to raise

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of claim under section 80JJA of Act, though the years was eight year of business operation. The Hon’ble Court held that Tribunal committed no errors, not to speak of law in passing the impugned order. It was held that when the department thought fit to grant the deduction for four consecutive years, there was no reason to raise

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of claim under section 80JJA of Act, though the years was eight year of business operation. The Hon’ble Court held that Tribunal committed no errors, not to speak of law in passing the impugned order. It was held that when the department thought fit to grant the deduction for four consecutive years, there was no reason to raise

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of claim under section 80JJA of Act, though the years was eight year of business operation. The Hon’ble Court held that Tribunal committed no errors, not to speak of law in passing the impugned order. It was held that when the department thought fit to grant the deduction for four consecutive years, there was no reason to raise

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of claim under section 80JJA of Act, though the years was eight year of business operation. The Hon’ble Court held that Tribunal committed no errors, not to speak of law in passing the impugned order. It was held that when the department thought fit to grant the deduction for four consecutive years, there was no reason to raise

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

disallowed under section u/s 80P which is void ab initio hence rejection of deduction is bad in law. 3. The learned (AO) CPC-Bengaluru erred in making addition to the income of the assesse society of Rs. 1,26

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

disallowed under section u/s 80P which is void ab initio hence rejection of deduction is bad in law. 3. The learned (AO) CPC-Bengaluru erred in making addition to the income of the assesse society of Rs. 1,26

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

disallowed under section u/s 80P which is void ab initio hence rejection of deduction is bad in law. 3. The learned (AO) CPC-Bengaluru erred in making addition to the income of the assesse society of Rs. 1,26