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

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department\ntaxing unreal and wrong amount of income.\n13.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the\nlower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed\nfor the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as\nassessed in the regular

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

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department\ntaxing unreal and wrong amount of income.\n13.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the\nlower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed\nfor the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as\nassessed in the regular

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

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department\ntaxing unreal and wrong amount of income.\n13.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the\nlower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed\nfor the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as\nassessed in the regular

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

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department\ntaxing unreal and wrong amount of income.\n13.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the\nlower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed\nfor the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as\nassessed in the regular

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

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department\ntaxing unreal and wrong amount of income.\n13.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the\nlower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed\nfor the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as\nassessed in the regular

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

section 37 and the disallowance thereof results into Department\ntaxing unreal and wrong amount of income.\n13.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the\nlower authorities have overlooked the claim in the return of income filed\nfor the carried forwards of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as\nassessed in the regular

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PRIVATE LIMITED,DAMAN & DIU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

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.163/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Hamilton Houseware Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Plot No.49/50, Danydyog Industrial Estate, Piparia 396230, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd1683Q

disallow of Rs.9,92,19,057/- by invoking the provisions of section 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act and added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 4. In view of the above, it is clear that the AO has passed the assessment order without carrying proper verification. Therefore, the assessment made

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallow it difference on the Shree Narmada Khan Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs ITO ground difference was not in law. The Sugarcane Control Order states only minimum price and not the maximum price is an accepted position as has been held by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in UP Co-operative Cane Union Vs West UP Sugar Mills Association

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallow it difference on the Shree Narmada Khan Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs ITO ground difference was not in law. The Sugarcane Control Order states only minimum price and not the maximum price is an accepted position as has been held by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in UP Co-operative Cane Union Vs West UP Sugar Mills Association

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallow it difference on the Shree Narmada Khan Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Vs ITO ground difference was not in law. The Sugarcane Control Order states only minimum price and not the maximum price is an accepted position as has been held by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in UP Co-operative Cane Union Vs West UP Sugar Mills Association

SHREE GANESH KHAND UDHYOG,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section (u/s) 37 of the Act. The AO made disallowance of Rs.24,82,82,209/- being amount incurred over and above the SMP. On appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the action of the AO was confirmed. Thus, further aggrieved the assessee has filed this appeal before Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submissions and Sh. Saurabh Suparkar ld. Senior Advocate/Authorized

SHREE GANESH KHAND UDHYOG,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section (u/s) 37 of the Act. The AO made disallowance of Rs.24,82,82,209/- being amount incurred over and above the SMP. On appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the action of the AO was confirmed. Thus, further aggrieved the assessee has filed this appeal before Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submissions and Sh. Saurabh Suparkar ld. Senior Advocate/Authorized

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section (u/s) 37 of the Act. The AO made disallowance of Rs. 70,46,06,950/- being amount incurred over and above the SMP. On appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the action of the AO was confirmed. Thus, further aggrieved the assessee has filed this appeal before Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submissions and Sh. Saurabh Suparkar ld. Senior

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section (u/s) 37 of the Act. The AO made disallowance of Rs. 70,46,06,950/- being amount incurred over and above the SMP. On appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the action of the AO was confirmed. Thus, further aggrieved the assessee has filed this appeal before Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submissions and Sh. Saurabh Suparkar ld. Senior

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDALI LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section (u/s) 37 of the Act. The AO made disallowance of Rs. 70,46,06,950/- being amount incurred over and above the SMP. On appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the action of the AO was confirmed. Thus, further aggrieved the assessee has filed this appeal before Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submissions and Sh. Saurabh Suparkar ld. Senior