SAHAKARI KHAND UDUOG MANDAL LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

disallowance of portion of the\napproved Final Cane Price to the extent of Rs. 125,56,23,819/- under gross\nmisappreciation of facts, misconception and misconstruction of the\nprovisions of Section 36(1

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

disallowance of portion of the\napproved Final Cane Price to the extent of Rs. 125,56,23,819/- under gross\nmisappreciation of facts, misconception and misconstruction of the\nprovisions of Section 36(1

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

disallowance of portion of the\napproved Final Cane Price to the extent of Rs. 125,56,23,819/- under gross\nmisappreciation of facts, misconception and misconstruction of the\nprovisions of Section 36(1

MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,.,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, , NAVSARI

disallowance of portion of the\napproved Final Cane Price to the extent of Rs. 125,56,23,819/- under gross\nmisappreciation of facts, misconception and misconstruction of the\nprovisions of Section 36(1

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG, KAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD., NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

disallowance of portion of the\napproved Final Cane Price to the extent of Rs. 125,56,23,819/- under gross\nmisappreciation of facts, misconception and misconstruction of the\nprovisions of Section 36(1

SAHADARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

disallowance of portion of the\napproved Final Cane Price to the extent of Rs. 125,56,23,819/- under gross\nmisappreciation of facts, misconception and misconstruction of the\nprovisions of Section 36(1

SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

disallowance of portion of the\napproved Final Cane Price to the extent of Rs. 125,56,23,819/- under gross\nmisappreciation of facts, misconception and misconstruction of the\nprovisions of Section 36(1

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE., NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,, NAVASARI

disallowance of portion of the\napproved Final Cane Price to the extent of Rs. 125,56,23,819/- under gross\nmisappreciation of facts, misconception and misconstruction of the\nprovisions of Section 36(1

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

56. Ground No. 1 relates to upholding the disallowance of landfill project No. 1 and 2 in not treating as separate undertaking 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

56. Ground No. 1 relates to upholding the disallowance of landfill project No. 1 and 2 in not treating as separate undertaking for deduction under Section

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

56. Ground No. 1 relates to upholding the disallowance of landfill project No. 1 and 2 in not treating as separate undertaking 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

56. Ground No. 1 relates to upholding the disallowance of landfill project No. 1 and 2 in not treating as separate undertaking 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

56. Ground No. 1 relates to upholding the disallowance of landfill project No. 1 and 2 in not treating as separate undertaking 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

56. Ground No. 1 relates to upholding the disallowance of landfill project No. 1 and 2 in not treating as separate undertaking for deduction under Section

SHRI KIRAN KASTURCHAND SHAH,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.282/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Kiran Kasturchand Shah, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat 235-236, Shankheshwar Complex, Kailash Nagar, Sagrampura, Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agzps1397K Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 24/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 06/06/2023

1) of the Act dated 20.03.2020 was requested to furnish the details of investment in property during the year with supporting documents and the assessee did not disclose before the AO. The AO has failed to inquire the purchase of the immovable property made on 07.02.2018 and to examine the provisions of section 56

KIRTIKUMAR NAGINDAS SHAH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.535/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Kiritkumar Nagindas Shah, Vs. The Ito, A-1103, Regent Residency, Near Ward – 2(3)(6), Saurabh Society, Pal, Surat Surat – 395009, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anjps9031P (Appellant) (Respondent)

1,13,250 3. Dividend income 23 However, you have not furnished any separate account for expenses incurred for earring of exempt income. Hence, section 14 of the I.T. Act attracts in your case. Therefore, you are asked to furnish explanation as to why expenditure incurred of Rs.7,56,965/- for earning exempt income should not be disallowed

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

56,00,00 - - - - - 15,02,000 12 0 16-May- 1,71,00,00 - 15,00,000 15,00,000 - - 30,02,000 12 0 17-May- 1,86,00,00 17-May- - 15,00,000 15,00,000 30,69,000 14,33,000 12 0 12 1,42,50,00 1,71,67,00 Total

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