ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.2(1)(1), SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD., SURAT

In the result, ground No.1& 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Assistant Commissioner The Surat District Co- Of Income Tax, Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Circle-2(1)(1), 1, Kanpith, Lalgate, Surat. Surat-395003 Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

9 ACIT Vs Surat Dist. Co-Op Bank Ltd. provision, limitations of Section 36(1)(viia) on the reasoning that it will form a check against double deduction. To our mind, such approach would be erroneous and not applicable on the facts of the case in hand. Interpretation and Construction of Relevant Sections 25. The language of Section 36(1

THE ASSTT. CIT., CIRCLE - 2(2),, SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

disallowed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(a) in assessment year 2012-13. However, on appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee was granted relief and on further appeals of the Revenue is pending before Tribunal. These facts were not controverted by Revenue. Thus, the assessee is liable to be succeeded on the principles of consistency

THE ASSTT. CIT., CIRCLE - 2(2),, SURAT vs. THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

disallowed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(a) in assessment year 2012-13. However, on appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee was granted relief and on further appeals of the Revenue is pending before Tribunal. These facts were not controverted by Revenue. Thus, the assessee is liable to be succeeded on the principles of consistency

THE SURAT DISTRICT CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) The Surat District Co- Deputy Commissioner Of Operative Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Vs Kanpith, Lalgate, Circle-2(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Pan : Aaaat 2985 Q Surat. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

disallowed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(a) in assessment year 2012-13. However, on appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee was granted relief and on further appeals of the Revenue is pending before Tribunal. These facts were not controverted by Revenue. Thus, the assessee is liable to be succeeded on the principles of consistency

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. THE SUTEX CO.OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.780/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. The Sutex Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Ward – 1(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, Bank Block, Surat Textile Surat Market, Ring Road, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaat2953Q (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2025

vii) of the Act in addition to benefit of deduction of the provisions for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. A reading of Clause (viia) of section 36(1) of the Act makes it clear that provisions for bad and doubtful debt made by the eligible banks has two components; (i) amount not exceeding

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijyananda Pruseth

9. The Id. AR submitted that the payment of cane price in installments – first, during the harvesting season based on provisional values and subsequently, on crystallization of accounts – is a standard and longstanding industry practice in the cooperative sugar sector throughout India and cannot be interpreted as an after-the-event distribution of surplus. The AR emphasized that the payment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs. BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

disallowance of alleged unaccounted job work receipt by assessee. Hence, ground No.1 to 4 raised by Revenue are dismissed. 18. Considering the fact that we have upheld the action of ld CIT(A) hence, sole ground of appeal raised by assessee in its appeal is also dismissed. In the result, assessees appeal is dismissed.” 8. Since, the issue is squarely

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs. DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

disallowance of alleged unaccounted job work receipt by assessee. Hence, ground No.1 to 4 raised by Revenue are dismissed. 18. Considering the fact that we have upheld the action of ld CIT(A) hence, sole ground of appeal raised by assessee in its appeal is also dismissed. In the result, assessees appeal is dismissed.” 8. Since, the issue is squarely

BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, Ground No. 4 to 6 raised by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

disallowance of alleged unaccounted job work receipt by assessee. Hence, ground No.1 to 4 raised by Revenue are dismissed. 18. Considering the fact that we have upheld the action of ld CIT(A) hence, sole ground of appeal raised by assessee in its appeal is also dismissed. In the result, assessees appeal is dismissed.” 8. Since, the issue is squarely

AALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.94/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Plot No.168, Udhyog Nagar Road, Udhna, Surat -394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8469M (Assessee) (Respondent)

VII of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 comes into force; and (b) such transaction is chargeable to securities transaction tax under that chapter: Provided that the income by way of long-term capital gain of a company shall be taken into account in computing the book profit and income-tax payable under section 115JB. Explanation for the purposes of this

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ), SURAT, SURAT vs. M/S. STAR RAYS,, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Income Tax Officer Star Rays, (International Taxation), Shivam Chambers, Vs Surat. Khand Bazar, Varachha Road, Surat – 395009. Pan: Aamfs 1942 B Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

disallowance by the AO. vi) That the department craves leave to add or alter any further grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of cutting and polishing of diamond and export of diamonds. The specific diamonds are certified by Gemmological Institute of America

THE ACIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. RAMDEV CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2999/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Ramdev Chemical Of Income Tax, Bharuch Industries, 3441-B, Gidc, Circle - Bharuch Industrial Estate Ankleshwar Pan: Aacfr3839A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

vii) of sec.9(1) were also not applicable in the case under consideration. The Explanation to section 9(2) inserted by Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect (01.06.1996) was also not applicable since the said explanation was not applicable to sub clause (i) of section 9 of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee relied in the case

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

9 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 of appeal. We have also deliberated on the various case laws relied by the assessee. There is no dispute about the date of search action on the assessee group on 16.07.2009. The time period for issuance of notice under section 143(2) for assessment year

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

9 NR Aggarwal Industries Ltd. Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2013-14 of appeal. We have also deliberated on the various case laws relied by the assessee. There is no dispute about the date of search action on the assessee group on 16.07.2009. The time period for issuance of notice under section 143(2) for assessment year

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

vii) Non-initiation of penalty under section 271B&271D of the Act ( in all three AYs),  (viii) Non-verification of loan availed from ManishbhaiSheladiya (in AY 2014-15 only). 4. The ld. PCIT recorded that the assessee was given opportunity of being heard on 05.03.2021 and on 12.03.2021, however, the assessee neither attended the hearing nor filed written submission

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

vii) Non-initiation of penalty under section 271B&271D of the Act ( in all three AYs),  (viii) Non-verification of loan availed from ManishbhaiSheladiya (in AY 2014-15 only). 4. The ld. PCIT recorded that the assessee was given opportunity of being heard on 05.03.2021 and on 12.03.2021, however, the assessee neither attended the hearing nor filed written submission

AMRUT SAROVAR,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

vii) Non-initiation of penalty under section 271B&271D of the Act ( in all three AYs),  (viii) Non-verification of loan availed from ManishbhaiSheladiya (in AY 2014-15 only). 4. The ld. PCIT recorded that the assessee was given opportunity of being heard on 05.03.2021 and on 12.03.2021, however, the assessee neither attended the hearing nor filed written submission

M/S. MANIPRABHA IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.288 To 293/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck 2552 R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.306 To 311/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1579/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Maniprabha Impex Pvt.Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 6219 L अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.312 To 317/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1580/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Dharam Impex Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffd 2692 C अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent)

vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known