“first appeal”

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

made in the case of the assessee in the preceding years, i.e. from AYs 2009-10 to 2015-16; but was consistently deleted in first appeal by the ld. CIT(A) whose order was confirmed by the ITAT also. Neither has the DRP noted any distinction in facts

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi, Ahmedabad

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

dated 29.12.2016 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A). Vide appellate order dated 13.08.2021, the ld. CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee , which is summarized as under

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi, Ahmedabad

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

dated 29.12.2016 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A). Vide appellate order dated 13.08.2021, the ld. CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee , which is summarized as under

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bharuch vs. M/S. Heubach Colour Pvt. Ltd., Ankleshwar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has filed copy of agreement and other details to justify the payment ... furnishing of inaccurate particulars.” 10. Aggrieved by the assessment order framed by the AO for assessment year 2010-11, the assessee filed first appeal and made detailed submissions before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) also called for remand report from the AO. The contentions

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bharuch vs. M/S. Heubach Colour Pvt. Ltd., Ankleshwar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has filed copy of agreement and other details to justify the payment ... furnishing of inaccurate particulars.” 10. Aggrieved by the assessment order framed by the AO for assessment year 2010-11, the assessee filed first appeal and made detailed submissions before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) also called for remand report from the AO. The contentions

Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, Ahmedabad vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

sought by the assessee by moving an application u/s 154 of the Act which was rejected consistently, both by the Assessing Officer and in first appeal by the ld. CIT(A), holding that the rectification sought was not amenable in terms of Section 154 of the Act since ... such interest expenses. The AO accordingly invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the expenses. 11. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Lankmark Township

M/S. Global Ship Trade Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S.Global Ship Trade P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-1(2) 321, Madhav Hill Vs Bhavnagar. Waghawadi Road Bhavnagar. Pan : Aadcg 1889 K (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

assessee before him, and merely on the basis that the addition made in the case of M/s.VMS Industries was deleted in the first appeal by the ld.CIT(A) and on the basis that identical money which came into “SCMPL” from through the Haresh Parmar and his firms, was added ... also confirmed the addition on the basis that identical addition in the assessee’s own case for Asst.Year 2004-05 was confirmed in the first appeal. 13. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied on the order of the ld.CIT(A). 9 14. We have heard contentions of both