THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4. The Assessing Officer after referring the provision of section 36(1)(viia) noted that as per this provision, the deduction is allowable @ 7.5% of gross total income before claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and 10% of aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner. The deduction as computed would

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4. The Assessing Officer after referring the provision of section 36(1)(viia) noted that as per this provision, the deduction is allowable @ 7.5% of gross total income before claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and 10% of aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner. The deduction as computed would

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHARUCH vs. BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD.,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4. The Assessing Officer after referring the provision of section 36(1)(viia) noted that as per this provision, the deduction is allowable @ 7.5% of gross total income before claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and 10% of aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner. The deduction as computed would

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4. The Assessing Officer after referring the provision of section 36(1)(viia) noted that as per this provision, the deduction is allowable @ 7.5% of gross total income before claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and 10% of aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner. The deduction as computed would

BHARUCH DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.-OP. BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHAURCH RANGE,, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4. The Assessing Officer after referring the provision of section 36(1)(viia) noted that as per this provision, the deduction is allowable @ 7.5% of gross total income before claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and 10% of aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner. The deduction as computed would

THE BHARUCH DIST.CENTRAL CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

4. The Assessing Officer after referring the provision of section 36(1)(viia) noted that as per this provision, the deduction is allowable @ 7.5% of gross total income before claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and 10% of aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such bank computed in the prescribed manner. The deduction as computed would

SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,BARDOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

4), touches\nupon the jurisdictional and procedural aspects – namely, whether the AO, in\nthe set-aside assessment, has in fact complied with the directions of this\nTribunal in the earlier round; whether the assessee was afforded a real and\nmeaningful opportunity of being heard in the faceless regime in terms of\nsection 144B of the Act and attendant CBDT Instructions

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 of Revenue

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 of Revenue

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 of Revenue

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37(1) of the Act. The assessing officer also held that SMP was fixed on the basis of recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) after consulting the State Governments and associations of sugar industry and cane growers, on considering various factors like in a scientific manner, using an accepted tools of economic and statistical analysis

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37(1) of the Act. The assessing officer also held that SMP was fixed on the basis of recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) after consulting the State Governments and associations of sugar industry and cane growers, on considering various factors like in a scientific manner, using an accepted tools of economic and statistical analysis

SHREE NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,NARMADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

section 37(1) of the Act. The assessing officer also held that SMP was fixed on the basis of recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) after consulting the State Governments and associations of sugar industry and cane growers, on considering various factors like in a scientific manner, using an accepted tools of economic and statistical analysis

SAHAKARI KHAND UDUOG MANDAL LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.DCIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

4), touches\nupon the jurisdictional and procedural aspects – namely, whether the AO, in\nthe set-aside assessment, has in fact complied with the directions of this\nTribunal in the earlier round; whether the assessee was afforded a real and\nmeaningful opportunity of being heard in the faceless regime in terms of\nsection 144B of the Act and attendant CBDT Instructions

ACIT, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S. MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,, NAVSARI

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated\nhereinbefore

4), touches\nupon the jurisdictional and procedural aspects – namely, whether the AO, in\nthe set-aside assessment, has in fact complied with the directions of this\nTribunal in the earlier round; whether the assessee was afforded a real and\nmeaningful opportunity of being heard in the faceless regime in terms of\nsection 144B of the Act and attendant CBDT Instructions

MAROLI VIBHAG KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD,.,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, , NAVSARI

4), touches\nupon the jurisdictional and procedural aspects – namely, whether the AO, in\nthe set-aside assessment, has in fact complied with the directions of this\nTribunal in the earlier round; whether the assessee was afforded a real and\nmeaningful opportunity of being heard in the faceless regime in terms of\nsection 144B of the Act and attendant CBDT Instructions

SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,GANDEVI vs. ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

4), touches\nupon the jurisdictional and procedural aspects – namely, whether the AO, in\nthe set-aside assessment, has in fact complied with the directions of this\nTribunal in the earlier round; whether the assessee was afforded a real and\nmeaningful opportunity of being heard in the faceless regime in terms of\nsection 144B of the Act and attendant CBDT Instructions

SAHADARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.,,NA vs. ARIVS.ACIT, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

4), touches\nupon the jurisdictional and procedural aspects – namely, whether the AO, in\nthe set-aside assessment, has in fact complied with the directions of this\nTribunal in the earlier round; whether the assessee was afforded a real and\nmeaningful opportunity of being heard in the faceless regime in terms of\nsection 144B of the Act and attendant CBDT Instructions