ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance pertaining to interest income.” 40. Considering the consistent decision of the Tribunal on similar set of fact on similar component of income, and following the principle of consistency, we direct the AO to follow the order of Tribunal in AY 2007-08 dated 27.02.2017 and recomputed the eligible deduction under section 80IA accordingly.” 33. Considering the decision of Tribunal

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance pertaining to interest income.” 40. Considering the consistent decision of the Tribunal on similar set of fact on similar component of income, and following the principle of consistency, we direct the AO to follow the order of Tribunal in AY 2007-08 dated 27.02.2017 and recomputed the eligible deduction under section 80IA accordingly.” 33. Considering the decision of Tribunal

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance pertaining to interest income.” 40. Considering the consistent decision of the Tribunal on similar set of fact on similar component of income, and following the principle of consistency, we direct the AO to follow the order of Tribunal in AY 2007-08 dated 27.02.2017 and recomputed the eligible deduction under section 80IA accordingly.” 33. Considering the decision of Tribunal

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance pertaining to interest income.” 40. Considering the consistent decision of the Tribunal on similar set of fact on similar component of income, and following the principle of consistency, we direct the AO to follow the order of Tribunal in AY 2007-08 dated 27.02.2017 and recomputed the eligible deduction under section 80IA accordingly.” 33. Considering the decision of Tribunal

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance pertaining to interest income.” 40. Considering the consistent decision of the Tribunal on similar set of fact on similar component of income, and following the principle of consistency, we direct the AO to follow the order of Tribunal in AY 2007-08 dated 27.02.2017 and recomputed the eligible deduction under section 80IA accordingly.” 33. Considering the decision of Tribunal

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance pertaining to interest income.” 40. Considering the consistent decision of the Tribunal on similar set of fact on similar component of income, and following the principle of consistency, we direct the AO to follow the order of Tribunal in AY 2007-08 dated 27.02.2017 and recomputed the eligible deduction under section 80IA accordingly.” 33. Considering the decision of Tribunal

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance pertaining to interest income.” 40. Considering the consistent decision of the Tribunal on similar set of fact on similar component of income, and following the principle of consistency, we direct the AO to follow the order of Tribunal in AY 2007-08 dated 27.02.2017 and recomputed the eligible deduction under section 80IA accordingly.” 33. Considering the decision of Tribunal

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance pertaining to interest income.” 40. Considering the consistent decision of the Tribunal on similar set of fact on similar component of income, and following the principle of consistency, we direct the AO to follow the order of Tribunal in AY 2007-08 dated 27.02.2017 and recomputed the eligible deduction under section 80IA accordingly.” 33. Considering the decision of Tribunal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. SHRI AMRUTLAL BABALDAS PATEL,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel, Income Tax, Circle-2, Vs I) A/96, Jalkamal Apartment, Bharuch. Near Manav Mandir, Gidc, Ankleshwar, Gujarat – 392002. Ii) 32, Surdhara Bunglow, Near Sai Hospital, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aebpp 2999 E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Jimit Shah – Ca Revenue By Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.Dr 22/02/2022 Date Of Hearing 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara Dated 29.04.2016 For The A.Y. 2012-13. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Development Expenses Of Rs.1,79,19,550/- Without Appreciating That The Purported Expenditure Was On Account Of Contractual Payment To Four Related Parties. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Payment Of The Labour Expenses To The Contractors Were Held Up For Three Years Of Sale Of Land & Payment Was Made In The Calendar Year 2015 Only After The A.O. Sought Proof Of Payment. 1.2 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That Contractors Of The Assessee Have Also Held Up Payment To Their Creditors For A Long Span Of Three Years, Which Is Not Acceptable On Any Surmise. Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara dated 29.04.2016 for the A.Y. 2012-13. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

disallowance of landfill project No. 1 and 2 in not treating as separate undertaking for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. We find that this ground of appeal is identical to ground No. 2 in appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which we have allowed in para 46

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

disallowance of landfill project No. 1 and 2 in not treating as separate undertaking for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. We find that this ground of appeal is identical to ground No. 2 in appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which we have allowed in para 46

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

disallowance of landfill project No. 1 and 2 in not treating as separate undertaking for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. We find that this ground of appeal is identical to ground No. 2 in appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which we have allowed in para 46

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

disallowance of landfill project No. 1 and 2 in not treating as separate undertaking for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. We find that this ground of appeal is identical to ground No. 2 in appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which we have allowed in para 46

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

disallowance of landfill project No. 1 and 2 in not treating as separate undertaking for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. We find that this ground of appeal is identical to ground No. 2 in appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which we have allowed in para 46

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

disallowance of landfill project No. 1 and 2 in not treating as separate undertaking for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. We find that this ground of appeal is identical to ground No. 2 in appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which we have allowed in para 46

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

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that rule 6DD(j) is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which the proviso to section 40A(3) is applicable and it only illustrative. The Hon'ble High Court refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia (supra

BALUBHAI MUSTUFABHAI MAHIDA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Balubhai Mustufabhai Mahida, D.C.I.T., Post Valak, Valak Kamrej, Circle-2(2), Vs. Surat-394180 Surat. Pan No. Bkdpm 8643 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 54B was disallowed. The Assessing Officer further recorded that the DVO has not given any report and the matter was getting time bared so the Assessing Officer treated the value of entire sale consideration as long term capital gain in the following manner: “(i) R.S. No. 200, 202, 176, Block No. 158, Village Valak, Tal-Kamrej Full value

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, 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 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 is claimed in the Profit and loss account

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, 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 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 is claimed in the Profit and loss account