ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

43B of the Act of Rs.2,41,651/-.The Assessing Officer while further taking view that in view of his observation that assessee was not having any agreement with any government, local authority & statutory body. Accordingly, following entire disallowance under section 80IA was disallowed. 24. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the action of Assessing Officer was upheld

BHARUCH ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,,ANKLESHWAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bharuch Enviro Deputy Commissioner Of Infrastructure Ltd.117-118, Income Tax, Bharuch Vs Gidc Estate-393002 Circle, Pan : Aaacb 8075 F Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

43B of the Act of Rs.2,41,651/-.The Assessing Officer while further taking view that in view of his observation that assessee was not having any agreement with any government, local authority & statutory body. Accordingly, following entire disallowance under section 80IA was disallowed. 24. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the action of Assessing Officer was upheld

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

43B also, the "due date" has been specifically provided as the date mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 139. In the aforesaid Explanation 5A, the legislature has not specified the due date as provided in section 139(1) but has merely envisaged the words "due date". This "due date" can be very well inferred as due date

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

43B also, the "due date" has been specifically provided as the date mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 139. In the aforesaid Explanation 5A, the legislature has not specified the due date as provided in section 139(1) but has merely envisaged the words "due date". This "due date" can be very well inferred as due date

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, SURAT vs. M/S. MICRO POLYESTER PVT. LTD., SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) A.C.I.T., M/S Micro Polyster Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, 2025, Jash Textile Market, Ring Vs. Surat. Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Aabcm 6127 E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

43B of the Act. Subsequently, the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 on the ground that at later stage, it was noticed that the provisions of Section 145A of the Act, with regard to unutilised CENVAT Credit were violated which resulted into under assessment of income of Rs. 26,75,167/-. The Assessing Officer on making belief

ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI, BARDOLI vs. SHREE MAHUVA PRADESH SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD, BARDOLLI

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) Income Tax Officer, Shree Mahuva Pradesh Ward-1, Bardoli, 2Nd Floor, Sahakari Khand Udyog Vs Bsnl Building, Opp. Jalaram Mandli Ltd., At P.O. Sugar Mandir, Station Road, Factory, Bamania, Tal- Bardoli-394601 Mahuva, Dist. Surat Pan : Aaaas 4731 M Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

reassessment proceedings within 4 years and beyond 4 years deserves to be quashed and set aside. [9.4] At this stage even the provisions of Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 are also required to be referred to. Clause 3 provides for minimum price of sugarcane payable by the producer of the sugar and it provides that the Central Government may, after consultation

OM SAI STONE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment. The Assessing Officer recorded that objection of assessee dated 11/10/2018 was disposed off vide speaking order on 12/10/2018. No such order disposing off objection was ever received or served upon the assessee. Thus, the action of Assessing officer without disposing of objection of assessee is void ab initio. The Assessing Officer made no addition with respect to share capital

OM SAI STONE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

reassessment. The Assessing Officer recorded that objection of assessee dated 11/10/2018 was disposed off vide speaking order on 12/10/2018. No such order disposing off objection was ever received or served upon the assessee. Thus, the action of Assessing officer without disposing of objection of assessee is void ab initio. The Assessing Officer made no addition with respect to share capital

SHIVA INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY GUJARAT PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, ITA No.2527/Ahd/2017 is allowed, and ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment in the Asstt.Year 2006-07. 7. In the asstt.Year 2011-12, the first issue relates to disallowance of Rs.31,09,082/- and Rs.3,08,247/-. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income electronically on 30.9.2011 declaring total loss at Rs.15,51,784/-. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed

SHIVA INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AGENCY GUJARAT PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, SURAT

In the result, ITA No.2527/Ahd/2017 is allowed, and ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment in the Asstt.Year 2006-07. 7. In the asstt.Year 2011-12, the first issue relates to disallowance of Rs.31,09,082/- and Rs.3,08,247/-. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income electronically on 30.9.2011 declaring total loss at Rs.15,51,784/-. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed

M/S. SHANGRILA LATEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Physical Court Hearing) Shangrila Latex Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Circle-4, C/O. B.M. Parekh & Co., 203, 2Nd Surat. Floor, Navjivan Society, Bldg. No. 03, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaics1479E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjay S. Kapadia, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2022 28/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

reassessment proceedings, the assessee company was provided copy of the reasons recorded for reopening of the case. The assessee vide letter dated 05.02.2014 filed objections for reopening of the case. The objections for reopening of assessment were duly disposed of, vide by AO by speaking order dated 19.02.2014. 6. Further, a show cause notice was issued