M/S SUMILON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.87/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Sumilon Industries Pvt. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd. 6-121-A, Vairagini Wadi, Income-Tax-1, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Delhi Gate, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs3567 L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

section 263 on ground that disallowance under section 14Awasnot made by Assessing Officer keeping in view Circular No.5/2014 (F.No.225/182/2013-IITA.II

ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR P. JAIN,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1164/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Bilimora Road, National Of Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari 396 521 Pan: Aamfs 3499 K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

263 of the Act. On examination of proposal and records, the Pr. CIT noticed that the claim of brokerage/ commission at Rs.55,30,100 despite the facts among the recipient of brokerage/ commission person / parties are covered by the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and only disallowed

MANISH PACKAGING PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.192/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, Gantiwala Compound, Near A S Surat Motors, A. K. Road, Surat - 395008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm6018Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) 13/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2023

263 withdrew the relief under section 80J holding that sub-section (6A) of section 80J lays down the mandatory requirement that before a claim under section 80J is admissible for any assessment year, the assessee must have his accounts of the relevant previous year audited by an accountant and the assessee must furnish along with his return of income

SUPREME AUTO,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1141/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Bilimora Road, National Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari - 396521. [Pan: Aamfs 3499 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 22.10.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 22.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

section 263 is initiated. The ld.Counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to para No 5 of assessment order and submitted that the AO has duly made enquiry regarding brokerage expenses of Rs.49,05,800/- and discussed the same in the body of assessment order by mentioning that on verification of vouchers and bills relating to these expenses produce

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3),  Validity of declaration made under IDS. 4. The ld. PCIT recorded that the assessee was given opportunity of hearing on 12.03.2021 and 18.03.2021, however, the assessee neither attended the hearing nor filed written submission in respect of proposed revisions proceedings under section 263

SATYAM TEXTILE PARK,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3),  Validity of declaration made under IDS. 4. The ld. PCIT recorded that the assessee was given opportunity of hearing on 12.03.2021 and 18.03.2021, however, the assessee neither attended the hearing nor filed written submission in respect of proposed revisions proceedings under section 263

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 263. The ld PCIT, accordingly presumed that the assessee has nothing to say and he decided to pass order on the basis of material available on record in AY 2014-15 to 2016-17. The ld. PCIT after considering the record of assessment held that in the search and survey of SRK group and it related parties, of which

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 263. The ld PCIT, accordingly presumed that the assessee has nothing to say and he decided to pass order on the basis of material available on record in AY 2014-15 to 2016-17. The ld. PCIT after considering the record of assessment held that in the search and survey of SRK group and it related parties, of which

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 263. The ld PCIT, accordingly presumed that the assessee has nothing to say and he decided to pass order on the basis of material available on record in AY 2014-15 to 2016-17. The ld. PCIT after considering the record of assessment held that in the search and survey of SRK group and it related parties, of which

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

disallowing a part of claim which was carried in appeal before CIT(A), requirement of conditions stipulated by sub-section (2) of section 80-I was very much subject matter of appeal and merely because Commissioner took a different view, it would not be sufficient to permit Commissioner to exercise power under section 263

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

disallowing a part of claim which was carried in appeal before CIT(A), requirement of conditions stipulated by sub-section (2) of section 80-I was very much subject matter of appeal and merely because Commissioner took a different view, it would not be sufficient to permit Commissioner to exercise power under section 263

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

disallowing a part of claim which was carried in appeal before CIT(A), requirement of conditions stipulated by sub-section (2) of section 80-I was very much subject matter of appeal and merely because Commissioner took a different view, it would not be sufficient to permit Commissioner to exercise power under section 263

LABDHI JEWELLERD PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

263. The Hon’ble Court in para 22 of its order on the objection of the revenue that there is no discussion of the issue in the assessment order held that the contention on behalf of the revenue that the assessment order does not reflect any application of mind as to the eligibility or otherwise under section

K. N. DIAMOND,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

263. The Hon’ble Court in para 22 of its order on the objection of the revenue that there is no discussion of the issue in the assessment order held that the contention on behalf of the revenue that the assessment order does not reflect any application of mind as to the eligibility or otherwise under section

RAJ ABHISHEK CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On perusal of records, it was noticed by the Ld.PCIT that assessee- firm had started the construction activity on 09.03.2007 and the same was completed on 26.03.2010, the firm was claiming the deduction under sub section (1) r.w.s. sub-section (10) of section 80-IB of the Act. During the course of assessment

SMT. KAVITA DIPESH SHAH,SURAT vs. THE PR. CIT-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.219/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Kavita Dipesh Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat. [Pan: Anhps 4998 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P. Singh, Cit(D.R.)

section 263 of the Act.On the issue of disallowance u/s.14A read with Section 8D, the assessee has stated that there

S. N. TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.586/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. S. N. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner 3010-11, Moamai Complex, Of Income-Tax- 2, Surat Near Bombay Market Surat Pan: Aakcs 0060 R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

263 of the Act when original assessment was passed after making enquiries/ verification. Hence, order passed may please be quashed. 2. Succinctly, facts as culled out from the orders of lower authorities are that the assessee is engaged in business of trading in coal , chemical & Transport Services. The assessee has filed return of income on 07.10.2013 declaring total income

SHRI DIPESH L. SHAH,,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.218/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Dipesh L Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road Surat [Pan: Afsps 3839J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.)

disallowance of interest expenditure under section 14A read with rule 8D by verifying the claim of deduction under section 57 (iii) of the Act. 3. It is therefore, prayed that the above order passed by the Pr. CIT under section 263

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

disallowed Rs.37,229/ under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the want of TDS on payments of interest to Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. 4. Subsequently, the assessment was revised by Ld. PCIT by exercising his power under section 263