N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

disallowed 2007-08 50690 24496 23362 1134 2330 2642203 2008-09 50082 21729 23082 -1353 2673 -3616013 2009-10 55952 32361 25787 6574 3250 21364987 2010-11 57616 30204 26554 3650 3033 11070262 21. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that as he has worked out lower coal consumption of Unit-I in A.Y. 2007-08 at 2450 MT, whereas

THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. N.R. AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VAPI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) I.T.(Ss)A’S No.14,15,16/Ahd/2016, Ita’S No.1302,1303& 3032/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 09-10, 10-11; 2011-12,12-13& 2013-14 N.R.Agarwal Industries Ltd., Vs The Acit/Dcit, Circle-3, Plot No.169 To 169, Phase No.1, Surat. Gidc, Vapi. [Pan: Aaacn 7721 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

disallowed 2007-08 50690 24496 23362 1134 2330 2642203 2008-09 50082 21729 23082 -1353 2673 -3616013 2009-10 55952 32361 25787 6574 3250 21364987 2010-11 57616 30204 26554 3650 3033 11070262 21. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that as he has worked out lower coal consumption of Unit-I in A.Y. 2007-08 at 2450 MT, whereas

M/S. BALAR EXPORTS,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT. CIRCLE-1,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.3188 & 3189/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 1.M/S. Balar Exports, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Balar Building, Opp. Surat. Panchratna Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] 2.M/S. Balar Exports, 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Balar Building, Opp. Income Tax, Central Panchratna Tower, Lambe Circle-1, Surat. Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah - Ca Shri Srinivas T. Bidari - Cit(D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 11.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 04.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Ahmedabad (In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 19.10.2011 For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Dated 31.12.2010 Of Balar Exports V. Dcit-Cc-1-Surat & Vice- Versa /I.T.A.No’S. 3189 & 3188/Ahd/2011/A.Y.2008-09 Page 2 Of 49

section 69C of the Act. Balar Exports v. DCIT-CC-1-Surat & vice- versa /I.T.A.No’s. 3189 & 3188/AHD/2011/A.Y.2008-09 Page 24 of 49 20. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) stated that some expenses are repetitive in nature and some expenses are pertains to earlier years. Therefore

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, SURAT vs. M/S. BALAR EXPORTS,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.3188 & 3189/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 1.M/S. Balar Exports, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Balar Building, Opp. Surat. Panchratna Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] 2.M/S. Balar Exports, 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Balar Building, Opp. Income Tax, Central Panchratna Tower, Lambe Circle-1, Surat. Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah - Ca Shri Srinivas T. Bidari - Cit(D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 11.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 04.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Ahmedabad (In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 19.10.2011 For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Dated 31.12.2010 Of Balar Exports V. Dcit-Cc-1-Surat & Vice- Versa /I.T.A.No’S. 3189 & 3188/Ahd/2011/A.Y.2008-09 Page 2 Of 49

section 69C of the Act. Balar Exports v. DCIT-CC-1-Surat & vice- versa /I.T.A.No’s. 3189 & 3188/AHD/2011/A.Y.2008-09 Page 24 of 49 20. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) stated that some expenses are repetitive in nature and some expenses are pertains to earlier years. Therefore

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of set off of loss on the basis of which the penalty was levied, has already been allowed in appeal against the quantum assessment vide order dated 14.02.2020 in ITA (s) No. 1535, 1536 & 1537/Ahd/2017. 4. To support his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws;  N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of set off of loss on the basis of which the penalty was levied, has already been allowed in appeal against the quantum assessment vide order dated 14.02.2020 in ITA (s) No. 1535, 1536 & 1537/Ahd/2017. 4. To support his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws;  N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy

RAJESHBHAI POPATBHAI GABANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(3), SURT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

disallowance of set off of loss on the basis of which the penalty was levied, has already been allowed in appeal against the quantum assessment vide order dated 14.02.2020 in ITA (s) No. 1535, 1536 & 1537/Ahd/2017. 4. To support his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws;  N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR POPATBHAI GABANI,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5)., SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

disallowance of set off of loss shares F & O against undisclosed income declared by DDIT, Investigation, Surat. From the records, we noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) on the solidary ground that the same was not within limitations and assessee had no ‘sufficient cause’ for filing the appeal in time. In this respect

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR POPATBHAI GABANI,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5)., SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

disallowance of set off of loss shares F & O against undisclosed income declared by DDIT, Investigation, Surat. From the records, we noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) on the solidary ground that the same was not within limitations and assessee had no ‘sufficient cause’ for filing the appeal in time. In this respect

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR POPATBHAI GABANI,,SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5)., SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

disallowance of set off of loss shares F & O against undisclosed income declared by DDIT, Investigation, Surat. From the records, we noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) on the solidary ground that the same was not within limitations and assessee had no ‘sufficient cause’ for filing the appeal in time. In this respect

SHRI VONODKUMAR D.BHARGAVA,,BHARUCH vs. ITO WARD 1(3), BHARUCH, BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Section 69C of the Act. I find that Ld. CIT(A) has not issued any show cause notice to assessee about making disallowance

SHIVAM ENTERPRISE,ALTHAN vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent. Despite such facts and circumstances and specific provisions of law in section 115BBE(2) of the Act, Assessing Officer has completed assessment determining total at Rs.7,88,56,573/- and thereby allowing your erroneous claim to the tune of Rs.31,43,427/-, rendering the assessment so completed as erroneous

SHYAM CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees (in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.107 & 108/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:(2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shyam Corporation, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. S. No. 84/1, 885 Block No.137, T.P. No.58, F.P. No.38, B/H. Siddhivinayak Complex, Bamroli, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgfs7598M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shivam Enterprises, Vs. The Pcit-2, Surat. Tp. 43, Block No.50, Fp.30, At Post Bhimrad, Althan, Surat-395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acdfs9748Q

69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent. Despite such facts and circumstances and specific provisions of law in section 115BBE(2) of the Act, Assessing Officer has completed assessment determining total at Rs.7,88,56,573/- and thereby allowing your erroneous claim to the tune of Rs.31,43,427/-, rendering the assessment so completed as erroneous

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD vs. M/S. MANGALDEEP, VALSAD

In the result, appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

disallowed then in that case, the said tax paid on such income should berefunded. In any case said exercise would be a futile exercise since the result would be taxneutral. In the light of the above submission, we humbly pray before your goodself kindly tax theundisclosed income u/s 28 and not any other sections of 68, 69,69A,69B, 69C

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, ADAJAN vs. ABHISHEK NAVNIT DOSHI , MAHIDHARPURA

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Ito, Abhishek Navnit Doshi, 405, Income Tax Office, Anavil 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Business Centre, Hazira Road, Vs. Jin Shanti Bldg. Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395003. Surat-395009. Pan No. Afhpd 0064 M Appellant Respondent

69C of Income tax Act. d) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the ld. d) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the ld. d) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the judgment of Calcutta CIT(A) has erred

SANJAYBHAI ARJUNBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

section 69C of Rs.\n1,01,57,149/-. We find that before Id CIT(A) the assessee again filed detailed\nreply and submitted that Annexures i.e. Annexure-A/5 and A/6 contains certain\nbills, delivery challan and details of other working during the construction work\nand numerous items were procured and subsequently returned due to change\nof plan. The assessee

JAYVADAN RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

disallowances u/s 69C of the Act. However in our opinion, the same is erroneous since section 69C is applicable to cases

VAMA INFRA,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance was also without basis.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["68", "69C", "69"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions