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

disallowance of deduction under section 80IA. Both assessee and revenue has preferred appeal before Tribunal and the issue was set aside the issue to CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) in second round has mainly followed finding of his predecessor CIT(A), given his finding at para 5.7 to 5.11 and reworked cost attributable to Lower Pressure steam at page

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

disallowance of deduction under section 80IA. Both assessee and revenue has preferred appeal before Tribunal and the issue was set aside the issue to CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) in second round has mainly followed finding of his predecessor CIT(A), given his finding at para 5.7 to 5.11 and reworked cost attributable to Lower Pressure steam at page

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. SHRI AMRUTLAL BABALDAS PATEL,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel, Income Tax, Circle-2, Vs I) A/96, Jalkamal Apartment, Bharuch. Near Manav Mandir, Gidc, Ankleshwar, Gujarat – 392002. Ii) 32, Surdhara Bunglow, Near Sai Hospital, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aebpp 2999 E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Jimit Shah – Ca Revenue By Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr.Dr 22/02/2022 Date Of Hearing 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara Dated 29.04.2016 For The A.Y. 2012-13. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Development Expenses Of Rs.1,79,19,550/- Without Appreciating That The Purported Expenditure Was On Account Of Contractual Payment To Four Related Parties. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Payment Of The Labour Expenses To The Contractors Were Held Up For Three Years Of Sale Of Land & Payment Was Made In The Calendar Year 2015 Only After The A.O. Sought Proof Of Payment. 1.2 The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That Contractors Of The Assessee Have Also Held Up Payment To Their Creditors For A Long Span Of Three Years, Which Is Not Acceptable On Any Surmise. Shri Amrutlal Babaldas Patel

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara dated 29.04.2016 for the A.Y. 2012-13. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ENVIRO CONTROL PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- 1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.113/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-I, Surat Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Nr. Titan Showroom Ghod Dod Road, Vs. Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat- Surat-395001 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 8700 C (Appellant ) (Respondent)

section 14A of the Act. The findings of the CO-Ordinate Bench is reproduced below: ITA No.113/SRT/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 “8. The ground No. 3 raised by the assessee in appeal is with respect to disallowance of deduction u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D in respect of share of profit received by the assessee from partnership firm. The assessee has received

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 1(1)(1), SURAT vs. ENVIRO CONTROL PVT. LTD., , SURAT

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.274 & 307/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Surat, Room No.108, 1St Floor, Maharshtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat- Aayakar Bhawan, Majura 395007 Gate, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 8700 C (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 14A in this case was squarely covered by the decision of this court in ACB India vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2015] 374 ITR 108 (Del). Furthermore, the disallowance calculated exceeded the amount of tax free income and was therefore held to be contrary to the ruling in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT vs. ENVIRO CONTROL PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.274 & 307/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Surat, Room No.108, 1St Floor, Maharshtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat- Aayakar Bhawan, Majura 395007 Gate, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 8700 C (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 14A in this case was squarely covered by the decision of this court in ACB India vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2015] 374 ITR 108 (Del). Furthermore, the disallowance calculated exceeded the amount of tax free income and was therefore held to be contrary to the ruling in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income

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

section 37\nand the disallowance of portion of sugarcane price thereof results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n4.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, As per\nSr.No. 1 above both the lower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact\nthat comparable

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\nand the disallowance of portion of sugarcane price thereof results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n4.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, As per\nSr.No. 1 above both the lower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact\nthat comparable

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

section 37\nand the disallowance of portion of sugarcane price thereof results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n4.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, As per\nSr.No. 1 above both the lower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact\nthat comparable

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

section 37\nand the disallowance of portion of sugarcane price thereof results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n4.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, As per\nSr.No. 1 above both the lower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact\nthat comparable

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

section 37\nand the disallowance of portion of sugarcane price thereof results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n4.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, As per\nSr.No. 1 above both the lower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact\nthat comparable

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\nand the disallowance of portion of sugarcane price thereof results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n4.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, As per\nSr.No. 1 above both the lower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact\nthat comparable

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\nand the disallowance of portion of sugarcane price thereof results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n4.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, As per\nSr.No. 1 above both the lower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact\nthat comparable

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

section 37\nand the disallowance of portion of sugarcane price thereof results into\nDepartment taxing unreal and wrong amount of income and hence, liable\nto be struck down.\n4.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, As per\nSr.No. 1 above both the lower authorities have erred in ignoring the fact\nthat comparable

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

79. Ground No. 5 states that the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,250 made out of telephone expenses, without considering the fact the assessee himself disallowed Rs.50,000 on this account. 80. Brief facts are that the AO has disallowed 1/5th of telephone expenses of Rs.51,250 which worked

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

79. Ground No. 5 states that the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,250 made out of telephone expenses, without considering the fact the assessee himself disallowed Rs.50,000 on this account. 80. Brief facts are that the AO has disallowed 1/5th of telephone expenses of Rs.51,250 which worked

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. K. G. DEVELOPERS, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

79,56,949/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income to impose penalty us 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. K. G. DEVELOPERS, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

79,56,949/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income to impose penalty us 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD.),VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for A

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.2886/Ahd/2010, 794/Ahd/2014 & 1769/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 बनाम M/S. Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Addl. Cit Range- ( Now Known As M/S. Bayer Vapi Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Private Limited) 306/3,Phase-Ii Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyer - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O. P. Singh Cit (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 26.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Three Appeals For The Assessment Year 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Dated 28.07.2010 & Dated 15.01.2014 Respectively Under The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] On The Direction Of Drp By The Addl. Cit Range-Vapi Range Vapi (Herein After Referred As The Ao) & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Dated 29.04.2016. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed As Under: It(Tp)A No.2886/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 2006-07/ By The Assessee: 2. Ground Nos.1 Is General In Nature & Do Not Require Adjudication.

79,214/- on account of management decision was not allowed to be written off and hence, disallowance proposed on this account were confirmed. 27. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the license is only an option to import raw material without payment of custom duty at any point