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

disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 21/06/2013 allowed certain reliefs to the assessee. 4. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under section

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

disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 21/06/2013 allowed certain reliefs to the assessee. 4. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under section

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

disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 21/06/2013 allowed certain reliefs to the assessee. 4. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under section

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

disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 21/06/2013 allowed certain reliefs to the assessee. 4. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under section

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

disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 21/06/2013 allowed certain reliefs to the assessee. 4. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under section

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

disallowed depreciation of Rs. 1,94,778/-. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 21/06/2013 allowed certain reliefs to the assessee. 4. Later on, the case of assessee was reopened under section

SHRI SABBIRBHAI DAWOODBHAI SHAIKH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Sabbirbhai Dawoodbhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shaikh, 3(1)(4), Anavil Business Vs 7/4539, Galemandi, Centre, Adajan, Surat- Lakkad Kot, 395009 Surat Pan : Aeqps 5688 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of Assessing Officer by taking view that assessee purchased asset under section 54-F on 22.09.2011. The assessee made deposit of Rs. 14,94,166/- in capital gains account beyond the due date as per section 139(1) and investment in purchase / construction

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

section 80-IA of the Act separately despite the fact that the said undertaking had started its operation from AY 2012-13 and the said issue was not raised in the appeal before the CIT(A). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action

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

section 80-IA of the Act separately despite the fact that the said undertaking had started its operation from AY 2012-13 and the said issue was not raised in the appeal before the CIT(A). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action

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

section 80-IA of the Act separately despite the fact that the said undertaking had started its operation from AY 2012-13 and the said issue was not raised in the appeal before the CIT(A). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action

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

section 80-IA of the Act separately despite the fact that the said undertaking had started its operation from AY 2012-13 and the said issue was not raised in the appeal before the CIT(A). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action

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

section 80-IA of the Act separately despite the fact that the said undertaking had started its operation from AY 2012-13 and the said issue was not raised in the appeal before the CIT(A). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action

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

section 80-IA of the Act separately despite the fact that the said undertaking had started its operation from AY 2012-13 and the said issue was not raised in the appeal before the CIT(A). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action

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)

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules as per calculation given below: (A)Average of investment in partnership firm M/s Gokulanand Petro Fibers: (96,58,97,818 + 115,42,90,245)/2 = Rs. 106,00,94,031/- Assessment Years.2014-15 Alidhara Textool Engineers P. Ltd. 0.5 per cent of Rs. 106,00,94

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)

4. The first issue is disallowance u/s 14A. During the year under consideration, the assessee declared exempt income from partnership firm, income from dividend and income from agricultural activity. The AO noted that the assessee had incurred expenditure relatable to the exempt income earned and therefore invoked the provisions of section 14A rw rule 8D resulting in addition of Rs.7

M/S. K.N. DIAMOND,,BILIMORA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE,, NAVSARI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1788/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S K.N.Diamond, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Soniwad, Bilimora, Of Income Tax, Navsari Navsari – 396 321. Circle, Navsari. [Pan: Aadfk 3167 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Parimalsinh Parmar – Advocate राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

section 40A(2)(b) without appreciating the submission made by the appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding action of the AO in making disallowance of expenses out of Exhibition M/.s.K.N.Diamond Vs. ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari./ ITA No.1788/AHD/2016 for A.Y.2012-13 Expenses

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)

94,91,789 7 Interest expense 1,31,41,414 8 Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D 9,69,564 9 Average value of investment x interest expense/ 9,69,564 average value of assets 0.5% of investment (0.5% of 6636876) 10 3,31,819 11 Total disallowable amount 13,01,383 12 Amount disallowed 10,000 Amount short

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)

94,91,789 7 Interest expense 1,31,41,414 8 Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D 9,69,564 9 Average value of investment x interest expense/ 9,69,564 average value of assets 0.5% of investment (0.5% of 6636876) 10 3,31,819 11 Total disallowable amount 13,01,383 12 Amount disallowed 10,000 Amount short