DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

section 133(6) concluded that mere payment by cheque is not sacrosanct nor it can make a genuine transaction. The Assessing Officer worked the peak credit in the case of Paras Gems, Madhav Gems & Mayur Gems and made addition of Rs.4.15 crores. The Assessing Officer further made addition on account of disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

section 80IA of the Act. The assessee could not either pin-point any specific query by AO, nor (A.Y s 06-07 & 07-08) Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. & Enviro Technology Ltd. could furnish any copy of specific reply to the AO on the issue of fulfilment of prescribed condition and upheld the order of AO in reopening. 6. On disallowance

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

section 80IA of the Act. The assessee could not either pin-point any specific query by AO, nor (A.Y s 06-07 & 07-08) Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. & Enviro Technology Ltd. could furnish any copy of specific reply to the AO on the issue of fulfilment of prescribed condition and upheld the order of AO in reopening. 6. On disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

section 80IA of the Act. The assessee could not either pin-point any specific query by AO, nor (A.Y s 06-07 & 07-08) Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. & Enviro Technology Ltd. could furnish any copy of specific reply to the AO on the issue of fulfilment of prescribed condition and upheld the order of AO in reopening. 6. On disallowance

M/S. S.D. MINERALS PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE JT.CIT.,(OSD)CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.554/Srt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. S.D. Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Joint Commissioner Of 3009, World Trade Centre, Income-Tax Circle –4 Ring Road Surat 395002 (Osd)Surat Pan: Aakcs 3533 K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 133(6) of the Act and obtained the Ledger copy of account of certain parties, in which five parties reflected that they had received cash payment in excess of Rs.20 000, in a day aggregating to Rs. 81,47,100. Therefore, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the same should not be disallowed

SANJIVKUMAR A. SHAH,VALSAD vs. I. T. OFFICE, VALSAD CIRCLE , VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.187/Srt/2021 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sanjivkumar A Shah Income Tax Department, 4Th Floor, Amar Arcade, Valsad Circle, Valsad Vs Halar Road, Valsad-396001 -396001 Pan : Acpps 0794 L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

section 14A read with rule 8D. The assessee reiterated that he has not incurred any interest expenditure. The assessee also reiterated that the Assessing Officer has not given reasons that assessee’s account is incorrect, in absence thereof, Assessing Officer cannot proceed to computer the disallowance as prescribed for making such disallowance. The condition precedent to embarking upon the determination

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. SMT. FALGUNI SANDIPKUMAR NAIK, SURAT

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 19, 20 & Ita 659/Srt/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court)

disallowance expenditure. On the objection of Assessing Officer that he has received information from Investigation Wing wherein that the proprietor of Veer Corporation namely Chetankumar K Shah is engaged in the business of providing accommodation entry and the same is treated as non-genuine. The assessee submitted that in response to notice under Section 133(6

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD-3, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

6,72,620/- towards Dividend received from other Co-operative Society deduction disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

6,72,620/- towards Dividend received from other Co-operative Society deduction disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

6,72,620/- towards Dividend received from other Co-operative Society deduction disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which

NAVAGAM VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.ITO, WARD 3 , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

6,72,620/- towards Dividend received from other Co-operative Society deduction disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which

MOGAR PARTAPORE VIBHAG SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LTD,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE , NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

6,72,620/- towards Dividend received from other Co-operative Society deduction disallowed under section u/s 80P(2)(d) which

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 under section 80IA of the Act. 9. We find that during the original scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer examined the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer while recording reasons recorded extracted in para-6.1 in the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the claim

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 under section 80IA of the Act. 9. We find that during the original scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer examined the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer while recording reasons recorded extracted in para-6.1 in the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the claim

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 under section 80IA of the Act. 9. We find that during the original scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer examined the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer while recording reasons recorded extracted in para-6.1 in the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the claim

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 under section 80IA of the Act. 9. We find that during the original scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer examined the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer while recording reasons recorded extracted in para-6.1 in the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the claim

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 under section 80IA of the Act. 9. We find that during the original scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer examined the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer while recording reasons recorded extracted in para-6.1 in the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the claim

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 under section 80IA of the Act. 9. We find that during the original scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer examined the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer while recording reasons recorded extracted in para-6.1 in the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the claim