HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Ram Lal Negi & Shri O. P. Meena

disallowance of Rs.15,45,212/- made under section 40A(3)(b) was confirmed. Hetal Ramanlal Shah v. ITO Wd-2(2) Surat /I.T.A. No.2188/AHD/2014/A.Y.08-09 Page 3 of 9 5

SHRI ANANDKUMAR RAWATRAM JOSHI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2112/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2007-08 & & I.T.A. No. 2135 /Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 Shri Anand Kumar Joshi Vs. Income Tax Officer, 407 Manoj Market Ring Road Ward- 2(2) Surat Surat 395002 Pan: Aelpj2447K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance @ 20% of Rs. 2,68,66,115 under section 40A(3)(b) for the assessment year 2007-08 is made by passing order under section 154 by observing that no notice under section 154 is required to be issued as the assessee has been heard while passing assessment order for the assessment year 2008-09 in set-aside proceedings

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.2,00,005/- on account of cash payment of purchases as per provisions of section 40A

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.2,00,005/- on account of cash payment of purchases as per provisions of section 40A

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.2,00,005/- on account of cash payment of purchases as per provisions of section 40A

SHRI NILESHKUMAR BHAGVANBHAI BODARA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3),, SURAT

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2776/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13

5% of total cash purchases disallowed of Rs.8,38,067/- under section 40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance of purchases

M/S. UNITED SALT WORKS,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.208/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) M/S United Salt Works Income Tax Officer, 9, Pruthvi Nagar, 1St Floor, Ward-1(3), 2Nd Floor, Above Vs Station Road, Bharuch- Bank Of Baroda Building, 392001 Station Road, Bharuch- Pan : Aaafu 4725 A 392001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

5 M/s United Salt Works March, 2014, rest of the year payments paid were made through account payee cheque or draft. Thus, the assessee violated the provision of section 40A(3) and the expense of Rs.5,36,100/- is disallowed

M/S. K.N. DIAMOND,,BILIMORA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1788/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S K.N.Diamond, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Soniwad, Bilimora, Of Income Tax, Navsari Navsari – 396 321. Circle, Navsari. [Pan: Aadfk 3167 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Parimalsinh Parmar – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

section 40A(2)(b) without appreciating the submission made by the appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding action of the AO in making disallowance of expenses out of Exhibition M/.s.K.N.Diamond Vs. ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari./ ITA No.1788/AHD/2016 for A.Y.2012-13 Expenses

RAJAN BUDHISAGAR SINGH,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-4, NAVSARI

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajan Budhisagar Singh The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 506, Priti Complex, Ward – 4, Navsari Vs. Shital Park Society, Opp. Jalkamal Society, Navsari – 396445, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahkps9432M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr)With Shri Kevin Langaliya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/11/2025

disallowed u/s 40A(3) and 40A(3A) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 25.02.2021, determining total income was at Rs.17,37,347/-. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dated 25.02.2021, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that

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 under Section 40A(3)(b) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee, for concealment of income. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance was upheld in order dated 07.11.2012.Further aggrieved the assessee filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue de novo. 3. In the de novo proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee purchased fire crackers from Shivkashi and made payment for transportation. The assessee was asked to furnish the receipt

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance was upheld in order dated 07.11.2012.Further aggrieved the assessee filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue de novo. 3. In the de novo proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee purchased fire crackers from Shivkashi and made payment for transportation. The assessee was asked to furnish the receipt

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-6,, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance was upheld in order dated 07.11.2012.Further aggrieved the assessee filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue de novo. 3. In the de novo proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee purchased fire crackers from Shivkashi and made payment for transportation. The assessee was asked to furnish the receipt

THE AMROLI VIBHAG VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance was upheld in order dated 07.11.2012.Further aggrieved the assessee filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue de novo. 3. In the de novo proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee purchased fire crackers from Shivkashi and made payment for transportation. The assessee was asked to furnish the receipt

THE DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH vs. SHRI GANESH KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhअपील सं./Ita No.3030/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2009-2010

disallowed as per the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the explanation of the assessee stating that Statutory minimum price of sugarcane has been fixed at Rs.94.68 per quintal whereas assessee society has paid price of sugar cane at the rate of Rs.1793.6 per quintal to the farmers

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD.),VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for A

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.2886/Ahd/2010, 794/Ahd/2014 & 1769/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 बनाम M/S. Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Addl. Cit Range- ( Now Known As M/S. Bayer Vapi Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Private Limited) 306/3,Phase-Ii Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyer - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O. P. Singh Cit (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 26.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Three Appeals For The Assessment Year 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Dated 28.07.2010 & Dated 15.01.2014 Respectively Under The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] On The Direction Of Drp By The Addl. Cit Range-Vapi Range Vapi (Herein After Referred As The Ao) & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Dated 29.04.2016. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed As Under: It(Tp)A No.2886/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 2006-07/ By The Assessee: 2. Ground Nos.1 Is General In Nature & Do Not Require Adjudication.

5: is against the disallowance made on account of QBAL License written off of Rs.54,70,214/-. 26. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the AO proposed that QBAL license disallowance of Rs.4,16,37,969. During the course of DRP hearing one more opportunity provided to the AO to bifurcate. The assessee has split off these

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance made by the AO on account of social forestry expenses of Rs.88,48,552/- without appreciating the facts that the activities classified as social forestry were agriculture operations and the same was not allowable U/s 10(1) of the I.T. Act and the assessee failed to prove otherwise? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance made by the AO on account of social forestry expenses of Rs.88,48,552/- without appreciating the facts that the activities classified as social forestry were agriculture operations and the same was not allowable U/s 10(1) of the I.T. Act and the assessee failed to prove otherwise? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of case