M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

68. Ground No. 3 states that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that expenditure incurred of Rs.1,43,200 on registration of trademark and reviewing the draft technology agreement was revenue in nature though the same was giving enduring benefit. 69. The assessee has incurred trademark expenses of Rs. 1,54,200 and Rs. 40,400 for consultancy charges

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

68. Ground No. 3 states that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that expenditure incurred of Rs.1,43,200 on registration of trademark and reviewing the draft technology agreement was revenue in nature though the same was giving enduring benefit. 69. The assessee has incurred trademark expenses of Rs. 1,54,200 and Rs. 40,400 for consultancy charges

HARMONY YARNS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Harmony Yarns Private Vs. The Pcit-1, Limited, Surat Plot-65, 1St Floor Subhash Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Nr. Ram Chowk, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach5895F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

68 of the Act and to be added to the total income of the assessee, for the year under consideration, which the assessing officer has failed to do. 4. It was also noticed by ld. PCIT from the Form 3CB-Col. 20(b) that the PF contribution received from employees of Rs.14,796/-, for which due date for payment

M/S. SHREE PADMAVATI ENGINEERS (I) PVT.LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

68,218. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Wherein it was submitted that small disallowance were deleted by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 2010-11. However, this contention was not accepted by the CIT(A) on the ground that in A.Y. 10-11, the CIT (A) deleted disallowance of interest as the assessee

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

68,770/- and claimed deduction of Rs.1.13 crores under section 80IA. The assessee filed objection against the reopening. The objection of assessee was rejected vide order dated 31.12.2012. The Assessing Officer after rejecting the objection of assessee proceeded for re-assessment. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order restricted the eligible profit to the extent of Rs.76

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

68,770/- and claimed deduction of Rs.1.13 crores under section 80IA. The assessee filed objection against the reopening. The objection of assessee was rejected vide order dated 31.12.2012. The Assessing Officer after rejecting the objection of assessee proceeded for re-assessment. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order restricted the eligible profit to the extent of Rs.76

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

68,770/- and claimed deduction of Rs.1.13 crores under section 80IA. The assessee filed objection against the reopening. The objection of assessee was rejected vide order dated 31.12.2012. The Assessing Officer after rejecting the objection of assessee proceeded for re-assessment. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order restricted the eligible profit to the extent of Rs.76

BINAY RAMBAHAL SINGH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(6), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1099/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Binay Rambahal Singh Income Tax Officer, 112, Sankaip Row House Society Ward-2(3)(6), Surat, Aayakar बनाम Ugat Canal Road, Jahangira Bag. Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs Near Prabhudarshan Society, Surat-395 001 Surat-394 130 [Pan : Azyps 7939 M] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

68,56,024 85,11,726 3. The Ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that constitutional validity of provisions of Section 36(1)(va) alongwith Explanation-2 and Explanation-5 to Section 43B

THE SURAT PEOPLES CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT, SURAT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.278/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) The Surat People’S Co Operative Vs. The Pcit, Bank Ltd., Surat-1 1, Vasundhara Bhavan, Timliawad, Nanpura, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2885P (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,703/- claimed by the assessee as 'GST input credit lapse'. 6. Further on perusal of Tax Audit Report, column No. 26(i)(B)(b) 'Not paid on or before the aforesaid date u/s 43B(f)’, it was noticed by ld PCIT that the Auditor has reported that the ‘assessee has not paid Rs.2,35,31,575/- as leave retirement

AKLAVYA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.93/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Aklavya Industries Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, Ward1(1)(1), Plot No.2429, Road No. 24, Surat. Opp: Parle Bottling Plant, Gidc, Sachin, Surat - 394230 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagcs6274F

section 14B of the EPF Act. Therefore, for any delay in payment of any contributions or administrative charges due for any period during the lockdown, no proceeding should be initiated for levy of penal damages in such cases.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10/01/2022 (Copy enclosed at page no. 57 of PB) had stated – “In March

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. GROWTH AVENUES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the department stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Growth Avenues Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), 409, Super Tex Tower, Surat. Opp. Kinnery Cinema, Vs Ring Road, Surat-395002 (Pan: Aaacg8681Q) Appellant Respondent Department By : Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. Dr Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") based on the details available on record. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 2,55,00,140/- after making the following additions/disallowances:- a) Claim of deduction u/s 43B - Rs.38,25,261/- b) SEBI turnover charges written back

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA vs. ANSUYA PUSPAVIJAYSINH PARMAR, SILVASSA

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue as well as all the three cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Ita Nos. 769 To 771/Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2017-18

43B for unpaid VAT collected by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,52,65,743/-did not pay to the VAT Department. 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the additional evidence u/s 46A and allowing the assessee's appeal without getting them verified from the AO in violation of the provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA vs. ANSUYA PUSHPVIJAYSINH PARMAR, SILVASSA

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue as well as all the three cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Ita Nos. 769 To 771/Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2017-18

43B for unpaid VAT collected by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,52,65,743/-did not pay to the VAT Department. 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the additional evidence u/s 46A and allowing the assessee's appeal without getting them verified from the AO in violation of the provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA vs. ANSUYA PUSHPVIJAYSINH PARMAR , SILVASSA

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue as well as all the three cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Ita Nos. 769 To 771/Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2017-18

43B for unpaid VAT collected by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,52,65,743/-did not pay to the VAT Department. 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the additional evidence u/s 46A and allowing the assessee's appeal without getting them verified from the AO in violation of the provisions