SHRI BALASHAH BAVA SANSTHA SARVAJANIK TRUST,ANAND vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 119. However and was noticed in the preceding parts of this decision, the same is confined to relaxation, incorporating a power to condone or to relieve a person from the rigours of the statute. That provision surely cannot be construed as contemplating the CBDT extinguishing a claim or a right. [Para 60]” 10. In the case of Sofitel Realty

SHRI BALASHAH BAVA SANSTHA SARVAJANIK TRUST,ANAND vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 119. However and was noticed in the preceding parts of this decision, the same is confined to relaxation, incorporating a power to condone or to relieve a person from the rigours of the statute. That provision surely cannot be construed as contemplating the CBDT extinguishing a claim or a right. [Para 60]” 10. In the case of Sofitel Realty

KAD STEEL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, TDS, ASHRAM ROAD,

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS and Rs. 40,866/- as interest. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During appellate proceedings, the Kad Steel Rolling Mills vs. ITO Asst. Year –2013-14 - 3– assessee admitted that the forms were indeed filed late but submitted that the delay was due to an inadvertent oversight

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

EAGLE STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

119 (Guj.). it is held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad that:-- "(6) Section 194C, as already noticed, makes provision where for certain payments, liability of the payee to deduct tax at source arises. Therefore, if there is any breach of such requirement, question of applicability of section 40(a)(ia) would arise. Despite such circumstances existing

JAYESHKUMAR TULSIDAS SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

119(2)(b) cannot adjudicate or grant exemption u/s 10(108). The impugned direction amounts to abdication of duty, rendering the order bad in law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant received compensation under the duly approved "BSNL VRS-2019" scheme, which fully satisfies the conditions prescribed under Rule 2BA and is eligible

JAYESHKUMAR TULSIDAS SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

119(2)(b) cannot adjudicate or grant exemption u/s 10(108). The impugned direction amounts to abdication of duty, rendering the order bad in law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant received compensation under the duly approved "BSNL VRS-2019" scheme, which fully satisfies the conditions prescribed under Rule 2BA and is eligible

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ASCENDUM SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ♦ Income-tax Officer -Ward

STHAPTHYA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 814/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Sthapathya Buildcon Pvt Ltd., D.C.I.T, Pavan Petroleum, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nutun Mill Compund, Ahmedabad. Near City Gold Cinema, Saraspur, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aalcs8818G

TDS details c. Travelling expenses. d. Administrative expenses. iv) Please furnish the details of interest and Finance charges of Rs.5,25,04,447/- and Other expenses of Rs.38,37,556/- 8.2 We also find that the assessee in response to the above notice has made the submissions as detailed under: 4. Details of interest and finance charges of Rs.5

NAVIN KALIDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 109/Ahd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Navin Kalidas Patel The Pr.Cit-3 802, Block –A, Status Ahmedabad Vs. Appartment, Opp. T. V. Tower, Drive-In-Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Achpp0215B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3, (In Short ‘The Pr. Cit’) Dated 29.03.2021 In Exercise Of His Revisionary Power Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income For A.Y. 2015-16 Was Filed By The Assessee On 25.01.2016 Showing Total Income Of Rs.2,03,730/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. As per the Explanation 2, the order passed by the A.O. shall be deemed to be erroneous and pre-judicial

STATE BANK OF INDIA (SARIGAM BRANCH),,VALSAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed

119 days. The assessees have moved petition seeking condonation of delay. It is stated that the process for filing appeal required approval of the higher authorities since taxation matters are not dealt by the assessees at branch level, and the impugned orders levying fee under section 234E of the Act were passed on assessees, which are branches of a nationalised

STATE BANK OF INDIA (BHILAD BRANCH),,VALSAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC GHAZIABAD,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these appeals are allowed

119 days. The assessees have moved petition seeking condonation of delay. It is stated that the process for filing appeal required approval of the higher authorities since taxation matters are not dealt by the assessees at branch level, and the impugned orders levying fee under section 234E of the Act were passed on assessees, which are branches of a nationalised

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJESHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

119. On 27.10.2016, opening stock was 19105.64 grams out which 912.52 grams was sold through invoice no 120 to 151. The appellant has further given the stock position on 26.10.2016 and 27.10.2016 as under:- Date Opening Stock (Grams) Sale (Grams) Closing Stock (Grams) 26.10.16 23963.360 4857.72 19105.64 27.10.16 19105.64 912.52 18193.12 5.3.7 The assessing officer has noted on page

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

119 (Mum-Trib). It is a decision rendered on 28.6.2019. Bench has reproduced the discussion made in the assessee’s own case for earlier years. It reads as under: “9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The issue involved in the present appeal, i.e. whether freebies

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

119 (Mum-Trib). It is a decision rendered on 28.6.2019. Bench has reproduced the discussion made in the assessee’s own case for earlier years. It reads as under: “9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The issue involved in the present appeal, i.e. whether freebies

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore