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

33. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order allowed deduction under section 80IA in respect of Land Fill I, Land Fill II and Incinerator project by treating the said undertakings as a composite undertaking. The ld CIT(A), held that the Incinerator is a new infrastructure facility and hence eligible for deduction under section

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

33. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order allowed deduction under section 80IA in respect of Land Fill I, Land Fill II and Incinerator project by treating the said undertakings as a composite undertaking. The ld CIT(A), held that the Incinerator is a new infrastructure facility and hence eligible for deduction under section

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

33. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order allowed deduction under section 80IA in respect of Land Fill I, Land Fill II and Incinerator project by treating the said undertakings as a composite undertaking. The ld CIT(A), held that the Incinerator is a new infrastructure facility and hence eligible for deduction under section

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

33. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order allowed deduction under section 80IA in respect of Land Fill I, Land Fill II and Incinerator project by treating the said undertakings as a composite undertaking. The ld CIT(A), held that the Incinerator is a new infrastructure facility and hence eligible for deduction under section

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

33. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order allowed deduction under section 80IA in respect of Land Fill I, Land Fill II and Incinerator project by treating the said undertakings as a composite undertaking. The ld CIT(A), held that the Incinerator is a new infrastructure facility and hence eligible for deduction under section

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 14Awasnot made by Assessing Officer keeping in view Circular No.5/2014 (F.No.225/182/2013-IITA.II), dated 12-2-2014 as well as provision laid down in Act. It was noted that during relevant year assessee did not earn any dividend income from its investments, thus, no disallowance was to be made u/s 14A and assessee had explained same before Assessing Officer during

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. 33. In case of Anupam Tele Services the matter which came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the facts of the case were that the assessee who is involved in the business of distribution mobile and recharge vouchers of Tata Tele Services Ltd had made payment of Rs. 33

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 made by the assessee under section 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 33,26,922 in the return

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

Section 143(3) of the Act was completed, determining total income at Rs. 35,33,360/- after disallowance of Rs. 18,27,989/- under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT vs. ENVIRO CONTROL PVT. LTD., , SURAT

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.274 & 307/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Surat, Room No.108, 1St Floor, Maharshtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat- Aayakar Bhawan, Majura 395007 Gate, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 8700 C (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 14A in this case was squarely covered by the decision of this court in ACB India vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2015] 374 ITR 108 (Del). Furthermore, the disallowance calculated exceeded the amount of tax free income and was therefore held to be contrary to the ruling in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT vs. ENVIRO CONTROL PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.274 & 307/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Surat, Room No.108, 1St Floor, Maharshtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat- Aayakar Bhawan, Majura 395007 Gate, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 8700 C (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 14A in this case was squarely covered by the decision of this court in ACB India vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2015] 374 ITR 108 (Del). Furthermore, the disallowance calculated exceeded the amount of tax free income and was therefore held to be contrary to the ruling in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income

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

disallowed the whole of claim of deduction of section 36(1)(viia). However, on appeal the ld CIT(A) allowed part relief to the DCIT Vs Bharuch Dist. Cent. Co-Op Bank ltd. assessee to the extent of Rs. 7.500 Crore, and remaining of Rs. 1.067 Crore was upheld by ld CIT(A) by taking view that no such deduction

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

disallowed the whole of claim of deduction of section 36(1)(viia). However, on appeal the ld CIT(A) allowed part relief to the DCIT Vs Bharuch Dist. Cent. Co-Op Bank ltd. assessee to the extent of Rs. 7.500 Crore, and remaining of Rs. 1.067 Crore was upheld by ld CIT(A) by taking view that no such deduction

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

disallowed the whole of claim of deduction of section 36(1)(viia). However, on appeal the ld CIT(A) allowed part relief to the DCIT Vs Bharuch Dist. Cent. Co-Op Bank ltd. assessee to the extent of Rs. 7.500 Crore, and remaining of Rs. 1.067 Crore was upheld by ld CIT(A) by taking view that no such deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MAHAVEER SHANTILAL JAIN, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Disallowance confirmed 2013-14 Rs.7,37,44,213/- Rs.36,87,210/- 12. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.” 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us and assessee has also filed additional ground under Rule 11 read with Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, which is reproduced below for ready

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

33. The significance of this is that Parliament treated contributions under Section 36(1)(va) differently from those under Section 36(1)(iv). The latter (hereinafter, “employers’ contribution”) is described as “sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognized provident fund”. However, the phraseology of Section 36(1)(va) differs from Section

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

33. The significance of this is that Parliament treated contributions under Section 36(1)(va) differently from those under Section 36(1)(iv). The latter (hereinafter, “employers’ contribution”) is described as “sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognized provident fund”. However, the phraseology of Section 36(1)(va) differs from Section

SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S MISHRA,BHARUCH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1 , BHARUCH

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.97 To101/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Shashikumar S Mishra Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-I, Bharuch Ayakar Bhawan, A/7, Ashirwad Nagar Society, Station Road, Bharuch-392001 Bholav, Bharuch-392001 Vs. Enterprises.Nihal@Yahoo.Com Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, Aykar Bhawan, Vadodara-39007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aoqpm 4008 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ"/Respondent)

33. The significance of this is that Parliament treated contributions under Section 36(1)(va) differently from those under Section 36(1)(iv). The latter (hereinafter, “employers’ contribution”) is described as “sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognized provident fund”. However, the phraseology of Section 36(1)(va) differs from Section