PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

TDS under Section 194-I of the Act and a major portion of the loans were repaid on 19.12.2016, 29.11.2016, and 07.12.2017 before the date of search, namely, on 11.09.2018, taken place in the case of Jignesh R. Shah. During the reassessment

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

TDS under Section 194-I of the Act and a major portion of the loans were repaid on 19.12.2016, 29.11.2016, and 07.12.2017 before the date of search, namely, on 11.09.2018, taken place in the case of Jignesh R. Shah. During the reassessment

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)

TDS. Thus the reason recorded for reopening of assessment itself failed, but the Ld PCIT revised the reassessment order on the ground

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI VIPINBHAI SOMABHAI PUJARA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

Reassessment proceedings were initiated vide notice under Section 148 dated 28.03.2016 on the ground of failure to make TDS from

SHRI VIPINBHAI SOMABHAI PUJARA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

Reassessment proceedings were initiated vide notice under Section 148 dated 28.03.2016 on the ground of failure to make TDS from

RUPINDER SINGH DUGGAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

reassessment was completed as follows: Information Amount of Source submitted Description Transaction during Enquiry u/s. Amount (Rs.) 148A(c) of the Act TDS

LIKHMI CHAND SHARMA,BHARATPUR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(7), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyallikhmi Chand Sharma, Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/O. Jngoyal & Company, Ward 4 (1)(7), C-162, Ranjeet Nagar, Vadodara Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001 [Pan :Bsrps 8059 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025

TDS accordingly, while the assessee had declared significantly lower income, resulting in a refund claim. Based on this discrepancy, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment

BHAVESH K SHAH,AKOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), ALKAPURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings, observed that the assessee had purchased a property for ₹1.35 crore, out of which a sum of ₹1,04,86,000/- (including TDS

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

reassessment (u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B) 7 Assessed Income Rs.90,350/- (same Rs.1,10,350/- as returned) (same as returned) ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 4 8 TDS

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

reassessment (u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B) 7 Assessed Income Rs.90,350/- (same Rs.1,10,350/- as returned) (same as returned) ITA No.701 & 702/Ahd/2025 4 8 TDS

SHRI RUSHABHDEV SWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK JAIN SANGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar&Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

reassessment Shri Rushabhdev Swetambar Murtipujak Jain Sanghvs.ITO(E) Asst.Year –2012-13 - 4– proceedings void ab initio. It was further contended that all income, expenditure, bank transactions, and TDS

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. REGISTRAR GUJRAT UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

reassessment, made an addition of Rs.38,72,56,429/- u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investments, primarily based on data from Form 26AS, Insight Portal, and TDS

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. GOPI SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABA

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

TDS u/s.194A of the Act. 3. The AO has not accepted the above explanation of the assessee and added the unsecured loans as unexplained income of the assessee and demanded tax thereon. 4. Aggrieved against the reassessment

GUJARAT STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS is required to be deducted on payments made to such Boards. 4.1 For A.Y. 2014-15 and 2018-19, the Department accepted the assessee’s exempt status and passed orders accordingly. 4.2 For A.Y. 2016-17, reassessment

GUJARAT STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS is required to be deducted on payments made to such Boards. 4.1 For A.Y. 2014-15 and 2018-19, the Department accepted the assessee’s exempt status and passed orders accordingly. 4.2 For A.Y. 2016-17, reassessment

ANMOL MEDICARE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalanmol Medicare Limited, Acit, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Nbcc House, Circle 1(1)(1), Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-38006 Ahmedabad [Pan : Aafca 1055 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rajenkumar M. Vasavda, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

reassessment on 16.12.2019, determining the total income at Rs. 23,62,660/-, making the following additions/disallowances::- i. Disallowance u/s 43B of the Act - Rs. 97,481/- ii. Disallowance of interest on late - Rs. 51,587/- Payment of TDS

MARUTI MULTICHEM PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

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

reassessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the loan of Rs.50 lakhs from M/s. DPCL were taken through banking channels, interest was paid to the lender with appropriate TDS

CRYSTAL QUINONE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblecrystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Vs. Nr. Old Excise Chowky, Circle 1(1)(2), S.M. Road, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan : Aabcc 1413 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07.04.2026

reassessment proceedings are liable to be held as invalid. 8.2 Even on merits, we find that the assessee has placed on record substantial documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of commission payment of Rs.4,50,000/-, including ledger accounts, confirmations, TDS