DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, ground No.6 raised by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.590/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Vs. The Acit, Circle-2(2), Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, Surat. J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) The Dcit, Circle-2(2), Vs. The Surat District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Surat. Shri Pramodbhai Desai Sahakar Bhavan, J. P. Road, Athwa Gate, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2985Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

73,75,000/-. ITA Nos.590/SRT/2019 & 4/SRT/2020 The Surat Dist. Co.op Bank Ltd. 6. The main grievance of ld DR for the revenue in these grounds are that these disallowances are not covered by the provisions of section 36(l)(viia) of the Act therefore ld CIT(A) should not have deleted these disallowances. Therefore, ld DR stated that addition made

MS KALAMANDIR JEWELLERS LTD. ,SURAT vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by way of\nproportionate disallowance of interest at the rate of 10% per\nannum.\n4.1 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the\nmaterial available on record. It is an undisputed position that\nduring the year under consideration the assessee incurred interest\nexpenditure amounting to ₹8,23,97,819/-, which

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

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,07,70,324/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount while computing the book profits under section 115JB

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

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,07,70,324/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount while computing the book profits under section 115JB

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

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,07,70,324/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount while computing the book profits under section 115JB

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

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,07,70,324/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount while computing the book profits under section 115JB

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

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,07,70,324/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount while computing the book profits under section 115JB

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

disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,07,70,324/- in respect of provision for pit covering expenses. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in adding back the following amount while computing the book profits under section 115JB

KHODIYAR MOTORS,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrisanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.729/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Khodiyar Motors Vs. Dcit, 1-2-3, Green Park, Surat Circle - 2(3), Navsari Road, Unn-Sachin, Surat Surat - 394230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaffk4882M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2025

73,189/-. There was a computational error in so far as the figure of depreciation was Rs.18,92,312/-. However, due to software error, depreciation was calculated otherwise than the block of asset method, because of which mismatch arose in the figure of income from business or profession as per the ITR filed and as per intimation received. Appellant filed

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)

section 194A were not applicable. This argument of the assessee was accepted by ld CIT(A), as M/s Deutsche Bank AG is a banking company and hence the corresponding disallowance was deleted by ld CIT(A). The ld Counsel stated that despite of this, ld CIT(A) had enhanced the addition from Rs.9,73,186/- to Rs.11,35,955/-, without

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. SATYAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, SILVASA

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73,746/- can be disallowed only under Section 13(3) as Section 13(3) is not applicable as there was no direct or indirect benefit availed by related party. The assessee trust is registered under Section 12A of the Act and is eligible for application of income under Section 11 of the Act. The assessee is undertaking its activity

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. SATYAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, SILVASA

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

73,746/- can be disallowed only under Section 13(3) as Section 13(3) is not applicable as there was no direct or indirect benefit availed by related party. The assessee trust is registered under Section 12A of the Act and is eligible for application of income under Section 11 of the Act. The assessee is undertaking its activity

M/S SUMILON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.87/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Sumilon Industries Pvt. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd. 6-121-A, Vairagini Wadi, Income-Tax-1, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Delhi Gate, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs3567 L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is found to be unsustainable in law, the powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. 11. In view of legal position discussed in above pars of this order, the order passed

RAJ ABHISHEK CORPORATION,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

disallowance in respect of deduction claimed u/s 80-IB of the Act. Thus, Ld. PCIT noted that Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2019 without making inquiries which should have been made and without application of mind. This make the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest

HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

73,201/-. These grounds of appeal are therefore, partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.” 9. On going through the observations made by ITAT, it is observed that while restricting the disallowance, the additions have been partly confirmed in the hands of the assessee on estimated basis i.e. disallowance of payments have been

JAYANTIBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jayantibhai Dahyabhai Patel, Ito, New Delhi, 283, Padm Punj, Siddhanth Bharuch-392001. Nagar Soceity, Gujarat Housing Vs. Board, Bharuch-392001. Pan No. Aebpp 3770 P Appellant Respondent : None For Assessee Assessee By : Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr Revenue By : 06/10/2025 Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

73,731/-, by order dated 01.03.2024, holding that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income to that extent. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the levy of penalty. It was observed that in the quantum proceedings, the addition made by the Assessing Officer had been sustained by the first appellate authority, and the assessee

BALUBHAI BRIJBHUKHANDAS CHOKSI,NA vs. ARIVS.PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhai Brijbhukhandas Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-Valsad, Room No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Choksi, Mota Bazar, Vs. Navsari-396445 Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifb 9804 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-D.R

73,500/- on 10.11.2016 in its bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda. The assessee stated that the said cash was deposited during the demonetization periods are part of the business receipts/sales only. On verification of cash balance summary vis-à-vis computerized cash books available on record. It is noticed that the opening cash balance

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

VIJAYBHAI MALABHAI BHARWAD,SURAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.,-1(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं/It(Ss)A Nos.23 & 24/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 3, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.118/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Acit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Circle -1(2), Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Dcit, Vs. Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Central Circle – 2, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Surat. Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर(खोज-और-ज"ती)अपील सं It(Ss)A Nos.90/Srt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vijaybhai Malabhai Bharwad, Vs. The Dcit, B-58, Chandramani Apartment, Central Circle – 3, Udhana Magdalla Road, Surat. Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aclpv4173C (Appellant) (Respondent)

73,46,863/- in his bank account. Thus the finding of the AO as given in the remand report are too found factually incorrect. Moreover, out of the loan amount of Rs. 3.75 cr, Rs. 1 cr was returned on 11.12.20.14 through regular banking channel. Further Rs. 50 lac were repaid on 27.02.2019. Keeping in view the facts narrated above