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

11,51,038/-. The Sr. Counsel of the assessee submits that as per assessee’s record, no demands were outstanding for this relevant year, thus adjustment of refund was erroneous. 54. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT_DR submits that the Assessing Officer may be directed to verify the defect. 55. We have considered the submissions and considering

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

11,51,038/-. The Sr. Counsel of the assessee submits that as per assessee’s record, no demands were outstanding for this relevant year, thus adjustment of refund was erroneous. 54. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT_DR submits that the Assessing Officer may be directed to verify the defect. 55. We have considered the submissions and considering

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

11,51,038/-. The Sr. Counsel of the assessee submits that as per assessee’s record, no demands were outstanding for this relevant year, thus adjustment of refund was erroneous. 54. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT_DR submits that the Assessing Officer may be directed to verify the defect. 55. We have considered the submissions and considering

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

11,51,038/-. The Sr. Counsel of the assessee submits that as per assessee’s record, no demands were outstanding for this relevant year, thus adjustment of refund was erroneous. 54. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT_DR submits that the Assessing Officer may be directed to verify the defect. 55. We have considered the submissions and considering

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

11,51,038/-. The Sr. Counsel of the assessee submits that as per assessee’s record, no demands were outstanding for this relevant year, thus adjustment of refund was erroneous. 54. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT_DR submits that the Assessing Officer may be directed to verify the defect. 55. We have considered the submissions and considering

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

11,51,038/-. The Sr. Counsel of the assessee submits that as per assessee’s record, no demands were outstanding for this relevant year, thus adjustment of refund was erroneous. 54. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT_DR submits that the Assessing Officer may be directed to verify the defect. 55. We have considered the submissions and considering

KIRTIPRADA FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD -1(1)(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

11. Before we adjudicate as to whether the Ld. CIT(A)’s action is right or erroneous, let us look at section 68 of the Act and the judicial precedents on the issue at hand. 12. Section 68 under which the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer reads as under: "68. Where any sum is found

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

11 grounds of appeal including illegal reopening the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the reopening of the case of the assessee u/s 147 Sh. Sabbirbhai D Shaikh is against the law, and consequential passing of orders u/s143(3) r.w.s

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.

4. In ITA No.174/SRT/2021 for AY.2008-09 (Revenue’s appeal): Ground No.1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,20,00,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. Facts relating to this ground

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.

4. In ITA No.174/SRT/2021 for AY.2008-09 (Revenue’s appeal): Ground No.1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,20,00,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. Facts relating to this ground

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.

4. In ITA No.174/SRT/2021 for AY.2008-09 (Revenue’s appeal): Ground No.1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,20,00,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. Facts relating to this ground

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

11 in appeal for A.Y. 2008-09, which we have allowed by following order of Bench in earlier years in para 39 of this order. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, this ground of appeal is allowed with similar direction. 51. Ground No. 7 relates to not adjudicating allowance of 10% of interest income as deduction towards expenses incurred

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

11 in appeal for A.Y. 2008-09, which we have allowed by following order of Bench in earlier years in para 39 of this order. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, this ground of appeal is allowed with similar direction. 51. Ground No. 7 relates to not adjudicating allowance of 10% of interest income as deduction towards expenses incurred

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

11 in appeal for A.Y. 2008-09, which we have allowed by following order of Bench in earlier years in para 39 of this order. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, this ground of appeal is allowed with similar direction. 51. Ground No. 7 relates to not adjudicating allowance of 10% of interest income as deduction towards expenses incurred

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

11 in appeal for A.Y. 2008-09, which we have allowed by following order of Bench in earlier years in para 39 of this order. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, this ground of appeal is allowed with similar direction. 51. Ground No. 7 relates to not adjudicating allowance of 10% of interest income as deduction towards expenses incurred

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

11 in appeal for A.Y. 2008-09, which we have allowed by following order of Bench in earlier years in para 39 of this order. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, this ground of appeal is allowed with similar direction. 51. Ground No. 7 relates to not adjudicating allowance of 10% of interest income as deduction towards expenses incurred

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

11 in appeal for A.Y. 2008-09, which we have allowed by following order of Bench in earlier years in para 39 of this order. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, this ground of appeal is allowed with similar direction. 51. Ground No. 7 relates to not adjudicating allowance of 10% of interest income as deduction towards expenses incurred

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. R K SHAH PROJECTS PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.55/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S R.K.Shah Projects Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aditya Complex, Nr. Tax., Circle-2(1)(1), Room No.216, Vs. Kapadia Health Club, Bhatar Road, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 8584 Q (Appellant ) (Respondent)

4. The brief facts relating to addition of Rs.54,90,000/- made on account of share capital/ share premium treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, are as follows: During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noted that the assessee had received funds under head the share capital @ Rs.10 per share and premium of Rs.140