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 an amount of Rs.1,06,70,293/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. (A.Y s 06-07 & 07-08) Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. & Enviro Technology Ltd. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount

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 an amount of Rs.1,06,70,293/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. (A.Y s 06-07 & 07-08) Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. & Enviro Technology Ltd. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount

ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT vs. M/S. SATYAM ENTERPRISE, SURAT

In the result, this part of issue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., M/S Satyam Enterprise, Ward- 3(3)(4), 182-Thakordwar Society, Nr. Vs. Surat. Spinning Mill, Varachha Road, Surat. Pan No. Abvfs 5076 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 3.28 crores under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. The assessee further submitted that they gave explanation and furnished complete details and explained legal position that if the deductee filed their return of income for corresponding assessment year, and included such contract receipt and paid taxes thereon, the deductor

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act considering discount given to the dealers is not in the nature of commission liable for deduction of tax at sources u/s 194H of the IT Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred by deleting the disallowance of Rs.4

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.431/Srt/2018 (Ay 2007-08) & (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Bharuch, Fertilizers & Chemicals Vs Above Bank Of Baroda, Ltd. Station Road, Bharuch- P.O. Narmada Nagar, 320001 Dist. Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आ.अ.सं./Ita No.432/Srt/2018 & ""या"ेप/C.O. No.12/Srt/2021 [A/O Ita No.432/Srt/2018] (Ay 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Gujarat Narmada Valley Income-Tax, Circle-1 Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bharuch, Above Bank Of P.O. Narmada Nagar, Dist. Baroda, Station Road, Bharuch-392015 Pan : Aaacg 8372 Q Bharuch-320001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent/Co- Objector

section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act considering discount given to the dealers is not in the nature of commission liable for deduction of tax at sources u/s 194H of the IT Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred by deleting the disallowance of Rs.4

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD vs. M/S. MANGALDEEP, VALSAD

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.1,54,98,765/- as per section 40(b)(iv) of the Act was also deleted by ld CIT(A). 13.We also find merit in the arguments advanced by Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Learned Counsel for the assessee, to the effect that ‘income of all the partners are taxable at the maximum marginal rate, hence there is no loss

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 43(2) is an allowable expense in mercantile system of accounting. 10. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Kolhapur Zilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 129 (SC)/[2023] 293 Taxman 603 (SC), while affirming the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 43(2) is an allowable expense in mercantile system of accounting. 10. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Kolhapur Zilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 129 (SC)/[2023] 293 Taxman 603 (SC), while affirming the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 43(2) is an allowable expense in mercantile system of accounting. 10. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Kolhapur Zilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 129 (SC)/[2023] 293 Taxman 603 (SC), while affirming the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

RAJVI CORPORATION,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. Rajvi Corporation, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(2)(2), D-3, Om Final Plot No. 108, Bombay Surat. Food Compound Kasanagar Road, Nr. Idbi Bank Katargam, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaofr0631E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ronak Parekh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A),-3/10473/2016-17 Dated 19.07.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on ad hoc disallowances. It is settled principle of law that on ad hoc disallowances the penalty should be levied. For that, reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 293

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

disallowing the claim of the appellant. Circular No.29 of 2016, dated 18.12.2016 (F.No. 142/8/2016-TPL) reads as follows- "Question No. 2: Where the amount declared under the scheme for an earlier assessment year can be taken into account to explain the transaction(s) in the assessment proceedings for subsequent years(s)? Answer: As per section 189 of the Finance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

disallowing the claim of the appellant. Circular No.29 of 2016, dated 18.12.2016 (F.No. 142/8/2016-TPL) reads as follows- "Question No. 2: Where the amount declared under the scheme for an earlier assessment year can be taken into account to explain the transaction(s) in the assessment proceedings for subsequent years(s)? Answer: As per section 189 of the Finance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

disallowing the claim of the appellant. Circular No.29 of 2016, dated 18.12.2016 (F.No. 142/8/2016-TPL) reads as follows- "Question No. 2: Where the amount declared under the scheme for an earlier assessment year can be taken into account to explain the transaction(s) in the assessment proceedings for subsequent years(s)? Answer: As per section 189 of the Finance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

disallowing the claim of the appellant. Circular No.29 of 2016, dated 18.12.2016 (F.No. 142/8/2016-TPL) reads as follows- "Question No. 2: Where the amount declared under the scheme for an earlier assessment year can be taken into account to explain the transaction(s) in the assessment proceedings for subsequent years(s)? Answer: As per section 189 of the Finance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

disallowing the claim of the appellant. Circular No.29 of 2016, dated 18.12.2016 (F.No. 142/8/2016-TPL) reads as follows- "Question No. 2: Where the amount declared under the scheme for an earlier assessment year can be taken into account to explain the transaction(s) in the assessment proceedings for subsequent years(s)? Answer: As per section 189 of the Finance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

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

disallowing the claim of the appellant. Circular No.29 of 2016, dated 18.12.2016 (F.No. 142/8/2016-TPL) reads as follows- "Question No. 2: Where the amount declared under the scheme for an earlier assessment year can be taken into account to explain the transaction(s) in the assessment proceedings for subsequent years(s)? Answer: As per section 189 of the Finance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE VIJYA LAXMI EXPORTS, SURAT

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.2342/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Vijaya Laxmi Exports, Ward-3(4), Surat. 5-15, Patel Park, Tadwadi, Rander Road, Surat – 395 009. [Pan: Aaifv 1685 J] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No. 815/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Shree Vijaya Laxmi Exports, Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat. S-15, Patel Park, Tadwadi, Rander Road, Surat – 395 009. [Pan: Aaifv 1685 J] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh –Cit(Dr)

293 ITR 369 had an occasion to consider the meaning of language employed in section 13 of the Special Court Act. In section of the Special Court Act, it was stated that provision of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. The Hon’ble Apex Court held

KANUBHAI VANMALIBHAI PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

293 (Gujarat),  CIT Vs Sidharth J Desai (1983) 139 ITR 628 (Guj),  Ashok Motilal Kataria (308 ITR (AT)-298),  Rajesh Kumar Kabra ( 93 TTJ -252) (Ranchi),  Narayan Prabhu Gavali (2006) 5 SOT-558 (Bang.),  S K. Kantilal (231 CTR 531- P&H),  Delhi Apartment (P) Limited (135 ITD-441) (Delhi), 15 Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF Vs ITO  Harjit Singh Sanga

GAUTAMCHAND CHUNILAL JAIN,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 420 & 504 /Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Surat. Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Shri Gautam Chunilal Jain, Surat. Prop. Of M/S Sai Star, 286, Laxmi Nagar Society, Nr. Tikam Nagar, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpl0577D (Revenue) (Assessee) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 215/Srt/2020 & 575/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2007-08) Shri Kushal R. Jain, The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. Surat. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. (Assessee) (Revenue) The Ito, Ward-3(3)(3), Vs. Shri Kushal R. Jain, Surat. Prop. M/S Kunal Gems, C/O. 901, Rajhans Tower, Mini Bazar, Varachha, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Advpj6155B (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessees & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Ita. 420 & 504, 575/Srt/2019 & 215/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Gautam C. Jain & Kushal R. Jain Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer noted that Shri Gautam C. Jain, assessee made bogus purchases from Shri Rajendra Jain Group, Sanjay Group and Dharmchand Jain Group, amounting to Rs.42,22,03,472/-, therefore Assessing Officer disallowed all bogus purchases and made addition to the tune of Rs.42,22,03,472/-. 4. On appeal