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

234B. We find that this ground of appeal is consequential, therefore, Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. Vs DCIT the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the interest under Section 234 accordingly. 50. Ground No. 6 relates to confirming reduction of interest amount of Rs. 32.29 lacs earned on fixed deposits from profit eligible for deduction. We find that this ground

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

234B. We find that this ground of appeal is consequential, therefore, Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. Vs DCIT the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the interest under Section 234 accordingly. 50. Ground No. 6 relates to confirming reduction of interest amount of Rs. 32.29 lacs earned on fixed deposits from profit eligible for deduction. We find that this ground

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

234B. We find that this ground of appeal is consequential, therefore, Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. Vs DCIT the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the interest under Section 234 accordingly. 50. Ground No. 6 relates to confirming reduction of interest amount of Rs. 32.29 lacs earned on fixed deposits from profit eligible for deduction. We find that this ground

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

234B. We find that this ground of appeal is consequential, therefore, Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. Vs DCIT the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the interest under Section 234 accordingly. 50. Ground No. 6 relates to confirming reduction of interest amount of Rs. 32.29 lacs earned on fixed deposits from profit eligible for deduction. We find that this ground

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

234B. We find that this ground of appeal is consequential, therefore, Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. Vs DCIT the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the interest under Section 234 accordingly. 50. Ground No. 6 relates to confirming reduction of interest amount of Rs. 32.29 lacs earned on fixed deposits from profit eligible for deduction. We find that this ground

SACHINKUMAR RAJUBHAI PRANCHVANI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 68 of the Act.\n4) Both lower authorities erred in levying tax u/s 115BBE of the Act.\n5) The Assessing officer erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B

M/S. SHASHVAT JEWELS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No3364/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S. Shashvat Jewels Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax, 6/1468, Shashvat House, Circle-2(1)(2) Surat Kansara Street, Mahidharpura, Surat 395003 Pan:Aajcs 9790D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68 of the Act. The AO has ignored the notice under section 133(6) on 06.02.2015 to both parties and filing by them confirmatory letters, which are on record. The assessee has also requested the cross examination of Shri Bhanwarlal M. Jain right from beginning, but same was not allowed, on the contrary pressurized the assessee to produce

MANISH BHOGILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.687/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manish Bhogilal Shah The Income Tax Officer-3 बनाम/ 6/B, Crown Mansion Navsari – 396 445 V/S. Ground Floor Forjeet Street, Cross Lane, Mumbai – 400 026 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqps 6699 F (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08 /12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27 /02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Manish Bhogilal Shah Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2

234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ground 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming invocation of penalty provisions under Section 271AAC, 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Ground 9. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds

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

234B(3) of the Act, interest is chargeable on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of reassessment or recompilation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding

ENVIRO TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT.,BHARUCH CIRCLE,, 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

234B(3) of the Act, interest is chargeable on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of reassessment or recompilation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding

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

234B(3) of the Act, interest is chargeable on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of reassessment or recompilation exceeds the tax on total income determined on the basis of regular assessment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding

HARSHAD KANJIBHAI PANCHANI,SURAT vs. ACIT, WARD 3(2)(3), SURAT

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of embroidery job work in the name and style of his proprietary concern viz. M/s. Meera Fashion and had filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.3,92,020/- for the year under

ANUJ SATISHKUMAR BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Mmber आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1267/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Anuj Satishkumar Bansal, Vs. Ito, 302, Shri Hari Appartment, Piplod Ward – 1(3)(1), Road Near Lancer Army School, Surat Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bwxpb3655C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025

section 69A appears misplaced. It may be stated that mere deposit in a bank account cannot trigger addition u/s 69A of the Act if the same is duly accounted for and disclosed in the regular books of account. In view of the above factual and legal positions, we are of the considered view that the addition of Rs.1

SUNIL KUMAR MEHTA,DARIAPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.265/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Sunik Kumar Mehta बनाम/ Ito, A – 24, Asthvinayak Complex, Vs. Ward- 2(2)(1), Dariapur, Ahmedabad - 380004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Allpm1108P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Chirag Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/11/2025

section 68 of the Act is not proper. The AO’s reliance on the absence of a formal contract is misplaced. In a trading business, transactions are often concluded through purchase orders and verbal commitments, especially between regular parties. ITA No.265/SRT/2025 /AY 2016-17 Sunil Kumar Mehta 10.2 However, we also note that the assessee has failed to produce

HOTEL ROYAL GARDEN,,DAMAN AND DIU (UT) vs. THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hotel Royal Garden, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Main Road, Dabhel, Nani Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefh2587H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca With Jayraj M. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2023

68,69,69A,69B,69C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has also given a plethora of cases without verifying whether the facts of the case are similar to the facts of the case of the assessee. In the present case the assessee was duty-bound to come out with full particulars which it has not done. In fact

NEMLAXMI BOOK INDIA PVT. LTD. ,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenas आ.अ.सं./I. िनधा" अपीलाथ" Appellant V ""थ"/Respondent . . T.A No. रण N वष"/A O Y: 1 1167/Ahd/ 2009- Nemlaxmi Books V The Assistant 2014/Srt 10 India Pvt. Ltd., . Commissioner Of 602, International Income Tax, Circle – Trade Centre, 1, Surat. Majuragate, Ring Road, Surat – 395 002. Pan: Aaacn 7935N 2 1102/Ahd/ 2009- Deputy Commissioner V Nemlaxmi Books 2014/Srt 10 Of Income Tax, . India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -1, Surat. 602, International Trade Centre, Majuragate, Ring Road, Surat – 395 002. Pan: Aaacn 7935N Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O.P.Meena, Sr.D.R राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 28-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 05-06-2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 28.01.2014 For The Page 2 Of 18 Nemlaxmi Books India (P) Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Surat/I.T.A. No’S.1167 & 1102/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2009-10

68,300/- then total stock works out to 2274066kg, thus, there would be difference of 12699 (22,74,066 – 22,61,397) which is negligible and same is identical figure for closing stock also, hence, will not affect the operational results. Similarly, the AO considered the closing stock of raw material at Rs.8,10,319/- as per back up data

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, SURAT vs. M/S. NEMLAXMI BOOKS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenas आ.अ.सं./I. िनधा" अपीलाथ" Appellant V ""थ"/Respondent . . T.A No. रण N वष"/A O Y: 1 1167/Ahd/ 2009- Nemlaxmi Books V The Assistant 2014/Srt 10 India Pvt. Ltd., . Commissioner Of 602, International Income Tax, Circle – Trade Centre, 1, Surat. Majuragate, Ring Road, Surat – 395 002. Pan: Aaacn 7935N 2 1102/Ahd/ 2009- Deputy Commissioner V Nemlaxmi Books 2014/Srt 10 Of Income Tax, . India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -1, Surat. 602, International Trade Centre, Majuragate, Ring Road, Surat – 395 002. Pan: Aaacn 7935N Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O.P.Meena, Sr.D.R राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 28-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 05-06-2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 28.01.2014 For The Page 2 Of 18 Nemlaxmi Books India (P) Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Surat/I.T.A. No’S.1167 & 1102/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2009-10

68,300/- then total stock works out to 2274066kg, thus, there would be difference of 12699 (22,74,066 – 22,61,397) which is negligible and same is identical figure for closing stock also, hence, will not affect the operational results. Similarly, the AO considered the closing stock of raw material at Rs.8,10,319/- as per back up data

BAKIR PACHORIWALA,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, , VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Bakir Pachorwala, I.T.O., Raj Sheet Metal Engg. Works, C- Ward-1, Vs. 1/16-B, Gidc Estate, Pardi, Valsad. Valsad. Pan No. Adxpp 9237 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

234B, 234C and 234D of the Act is unjustified. 4. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified. 5. The order passed by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is illegal, invalid and bad in law and required to be quashed.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that

KANCHAN DEVI AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Bijayananda Pruseth

section 148 in view of the decision of the Union of India Vs. Aashish Agawal, and (ii) merit of the impugned addition. The ld.CIT(A), however, upheld the finding of the AO and confirmed his order on both the counts. Hence, the assessee has come in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. In this appeal, the assessee has raised