ISHIT KAMLESHBHAI SHETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

block assessment in a search case, the Bombay High Court has\nheld that the use of word ‘may' in Section 158BFA(2) [which is similarly\nworded to Section 270A(1)] confers discretion on the Assessing Officer\nto direct payment of penalty. Albeit such a discretion is not arbitrary\nand has to be guided by well-established principles depending upon\nthe

M R PATEL AND SONS,SOUTH TOWER,AMBLI BOPAL ROAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN (VEJALPUR),NR SACHIN TOWER,ANANDNAGAR PRAHLADNAGAR ROAD,AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

block of fixed assets of Rs 94,226.52 Lakhs, how it can be presume that company has no Infrastructure and man power? It is further respectfully submitted that during the year assesse/ we have received the loading super vision income of Rs.1,92,73,751/ & commission & other income of Rs.1,25,62,500/, from Gujarat Electricity Board (Government Corporation) & from

BRIGHTECH VALVES & CONTROLS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.52/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Brightech Valves & Controls Vs. Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No.345, Gidc Kathwada. Income Tax, Kathwada, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-382430. Ahmedabad.

TDS of Rs.8,730/-. During the year the Asst.Year –2012-13 - 5– assessee had claimed sales promotion expenses of Rs.61,975/- and sales commission expenses of Rs.9,54,524/-. However, during the assessment proceedings the assessee had not furnished any details despite being specifically asked vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 08.10.2019, 07.11.2019 and 15.06.2019. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed

COSMOS ENGITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarcosmos Engitech Private Ltd., The Assistant Vs. Plot No.85/2, Cosmos House, Commissioner Padra Road, Atladara, Of Income Tax, Vadodara-380015. Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara. [Pan :Aaacc7647 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

TDS of Rs.8,730/-. During the year the assessee had claimed sales promotion expenses of Rs.61,975/- and sales commission expenses of Rs.9,54,524/-. However, during the assessment proceedings the assessee had not furnished any details despite being specifically asked vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 08.10.2019, 07.11.2019 and 15.06.2019. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment

DISHA RESOURCES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARIHANT AVENUES AND CREDIT LIMITED.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs.8,730/-. During the year the assessee had claimed sales promotion expenses of Rs.61,975/- and sales commission expenses of Rs.9,54,524/-. However, during the assessment proceedings the assessee had not furnished any details despite being specifically asked vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 08.10.2019, 07.11.2019 and 15.06.2019. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment

DISHA RESOURCES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARIHANT AVENUES AND CREDIT LIMITED.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs.8,730/-. During the year the assessee had claimed sales promotion expenses of Rs.61,975/- and sales commission expenses of Rs.9,54,524/-. However, during the assessment proceedings the assessee had not furnished any details despite being specifically asked vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 08.10.2019, 07.11.2019 and 15.06.2019. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment

OFFICE OF THE GEOLOGIST,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO (TDS), GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2011-12

Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Geologist (S.K.), Income Tax Officer (TDS), B-Block, Third Floor, Vs 401, Udyog Bhawan, Bahumali

M/S. JUGALKISHORE R. AGRAWAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,DEESA vs. THE JT. CIT, B.K.RANGE,, PALANPUR

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

TDS from payment made to transporters and erred in not properly appreciating the explanation and submission of the appellant. 4) The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. The assessee has taken primarily three grounds of appeal, which shall be taken

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

block of assets, the assessee is entitled for separate claim of depreciation on these assets which should be worked out on the reduced WDV for this year. The AO should carry out the verifications as directed above and should allow the claim of the assessee, if found correct. The grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Ground Number- 11: Product

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

block of assets, the assessee is entitled for separate claim of depreciation on these assets which should be worked out on the reduced WDV for this year. The AO should carry out the verifications as directed above and should allow the claim of the assessee, if found correct. The grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Ground Number- 11: Product

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS certificates. The lack of financial risk or investment suggested that the assessee did not assume the typical risks associated with a developer's role. The AO observed that payments received by the assessee were subject to tax deduction under section 194C of the Act, which applies to payments to contractors which further indicated that the assessee was operating

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS certificates. The lack of financial risk or investment suggested that the assessee did not assume the typical risks associated with a developer's role. The AO observed that payments received by the assessee were subject to tax deduction under section 194C of the Act, which applies to payments to contractors which further indicated that the assessee was operating

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS certificates. The lack of financial risk or investment suggested that the assessee did not assume the typical risks associated with a developer's role. The AO observed that payments received by the assessee were subject to tax deduction under section 194C of the Act, which applies to payments to contractors which further indicated that the assessee was operating

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS certificates. The lack of financial risk or investment suggested that the assessee did not assume the typical risks associated with a developer's role. The AO observed that payments received by the assessee were subject to tax deduction under section 194C of the Act, which applies to payments to contractors which further indicated that the assessee was operating

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS certificates. The lack of financial risk or investment suggested that the assessee did not assume the typical risks associated with a developer's role. The AO observed that payments received by the assessee were subject to tax deduction under section 194C of the Act, which applies to payments to contractors which further indicated that the assessee was operating

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS certificates. The lack of financial risk or investment suggested that the assessee did not assume the typical risks associated with a developer's role. The AO observed that payments received by the assessee were subject to tax deduction under section 194C of the Act, which applies to payments to contractors which further indicated that the assessee was operating

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS certificates. The lack of financial risk or investment suggested that the assessee did not assume the typical risks associated with a developer's role. The AO observed that payments received by the assessee were subject to tax deduction under section 194C of the Act, which applies to payments to contractors which further indicated that the assessee was operating

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS certificates. The lack of financial risk or investment suggested that the assessee did not assume the typical risks associated with a developer's role. The AO observed that payments received by the assessee were subject to tax deduction under section 194C of the Act, which applies to payments to contractors which further indicated that the assessee was operating

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS certificates. The lack of financial risk or investment suggested that the assessee did not assume the typical risks associated with a developer's role. The AO observed that payments received by the assessee were subject to tax deduction under section 194C of the Act, which applies to payments to contractors which further indicated that the assessee was operating