BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 115JB in respect of disallowance of disallowance of post closer and pit covering expenses. Considering the fact that we have allowed relief on both the disallowances to the assessee, therefore, this issue have become academic. 31. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue of reopening as well as on various issues on merit

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 115JB in respect of disallowance of disallowance of post closer and pit covering expenses. Considering the fact that we have allowed relief on both the disallowances to the assessee, therefore, this issue have become academic. 31. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue of reopening as well as on various issues on merit

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE DY.CIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 115JB in respect of disallowance of disallowance of post closer and pit covering expenses. Considering the fact that we have allowed relief on both the disallowances to the assessee, therefore, this issue have become academic. 31. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue of reopening as well as on various issues on merit

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ADDL.CIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 115JB in respect of disallowance of disallowance of post closer and pit covering expenses. Considering the fact that we have allowed relief on both the disallowances to the assessee, therefore, this issue have become academic. 31. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue of reopening as well as on various issues on merit

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 115JB in respect of disallowance of disallowance of post closer and pit covering expenses. Considering the fact that we have allowed relief on both the disallowances to the assessee, therefore, this issue have become academic. 31. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue of reopening as well as on various issues on merit

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ACIT,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 115JB in respect of disallowance of disallowance of post closer and pit covering expenses. Considering the fact that we have allowed relief on both the disallowances to the assessee, therefore, this issue have become academic. 31. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue of reopening as well as on various issues on merit

MURTUJA HUSAINBHAI HIRANI,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, , NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Murtuja Hussainbhai Hirani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3, Prop. Of R. K. Bullion, Navsari Shop No.5, Pranav Chamber Madhumati, Navsari – 396445, Gujarat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aciph3680D Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 09/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

32. The legal proposition that arises from the above decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court is that the consequences, which were to befall on account of non-observation of sub-section (3) of section 40A must have nexus to the failure of such object. Therefore the genuineness of the transactions and it being free from vice

HUBERGROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VAPI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Plot No.808/E, Phase-Ii, Income Tax, Valsad, Room Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 No.301, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Pan No. Aaach 7063 F Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

disallowed deduction to the limit of claim under section 80IA. Admittedly there is no discussion about other / remaining domestic transaction of more than Rs.24.00 Crore, which clearly established that the assessment order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld CIT-DR for the revenue prayed for upholding the order of ld PCIT. To support his submission

BHAVNA ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Bhavna Enterprise, Vs. The Adit, 30, Ambika Nagar Society, Cpc, Bengaluru Hazira Road, Ichchhapore, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer: Surat - 394510 The Ito, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfb5274K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1(1)(1), SURAT vs. V R SURAT PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S DHANLAXMI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee (in CO

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.329/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Vs. V R Surat Pvt. Ltd. 1(1)(1), Surat, Room No.111, 1St (Formerly Known As M/S. Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Dhanlaxmi Infrastructure Pvt. Gate, Surat-395001 Ltd.,).F. No.29, Virtuous Retail, Surat Dumas, Nr. Dumas Resort, Magdalla, Surat– 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd5578R (Assessee) (Respondent) ""या"ेप. सं./Co No.16/Srt/2022 [Arising Out Of Ita No.329/Srt/2022] Assessment Year: (2015-16)

disallowance under section 14 A of the Act amounting to Rs.11,54,002/-. (ix) On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. (x) It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-2(1)(1), BARODA vs. THE BHARUCH DIS CENT CO-OP BANK LTD., BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

32. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-2(1)(1), BARODA vs. THE BHARUCH DIS CENT CO-OP BANK LTD., BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

32. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-2(1)(1), BARODA vs. THE BHARUCH DIS CENT CO-OP BANK LTD., BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

32. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under Section

GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-3, VADODARA

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.178/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Vs. The Pcit-3 & Chemicals Ltd., Surat. Narmada House, Narmadanagar, Bharuch – 392015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacg8372Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yogesh Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

32,25,625/- during the year under consideration and made suo-moto disallowance of Rs.4,52,000/- towards salary of employee and demat charges attributable towards earning tax free income in return of income. As required by AO during course of hearing, appellant vide letter dated 22/12/2017 justified non-applicability of section

HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

disallowance of payments have been directed to be restricted to 8% of the total turnover. 10. It is a well settled principle of law that once additions have been made in the hands of the assessee on estimated basis, then there is no question of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. In the case

JERAMBHAI BHAGVANBHAI GOHIL,VARACHHA, SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

section 54B and claim cannot be disallowed on this ground. To support his submission, the assessee relied on the decision various High Courts 8 Jerambhai B Gohil including in CIT Vs Jagruti Aggarwal (339 ITR 610 P & H), CIT Vs Jagtar Singh Chawla (259 ITR 388 P& H), CIT Vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan ( 286 ITR 274 Gau) and Fatimabai

KETAN N. SHAH (HUF) ,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.321/Srt/2018,िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Virtual Court) Ketan N. Shah (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.275, Usha Hospital & Life Ward -5, Vapi. Science Charitable Trust, Near Cine Park, Chanod, Vapi – 396195. [Pan: Aahhk 4703 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hardikvora– Ar िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 20.10.2020 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 20.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judical Memebr: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 [“Cit(A)” ], Valsad, State Of Gujarat,Dated 27.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14.This Appeal Was Initially Adjudicated Vide Order Dated 31.07.2019. However, The Order Was Recalled Vide Order Dated 02.01.2020 In Ma No.59/Srt/2019, Thus, In The Aforesaid Background, The Appeal Was Heard Afresh.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

32,967/- and claimed deduction on rest of the amount i.e. Rs.1,93,75,986/-. The assessee further claimed that it has invested Rs.1.76 crore in capital gain account with Bank of Baroda and remaining Rs.35 lakhs was invested in purchase of residential property with M/s. Samanvay 2 Ketan N. Shah (HUF) Vs. ITO, ITA No.321/SRT/2018 for A.Y.2013-14 Park (builder

GUJARAT MITRA PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.32 & 33/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Mitra Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Ward No.10, Soni Faliya, Chowk Centralized Processing Center, Vs. Bazar, Surat-395003 Bangalore-560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg 2528 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible