ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

131 of the Act. 4.13 Without prejudice to the above, the assessee further submitted that it has discharged the onus imposed under section 68 of the Act by way of furnishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee. Thus

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

131(1) of the Act recorded where admitted that he never visited Nasik construction site. With respect to payment of Rs. 2.86 crore being depart labour for work at Nasik stated that cash was withdrawn in Ahmadabad and sent to Nasik by employing services of angadia but no detail of angadia was provided. - The assessee submitted two work contract executed

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

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 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

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, 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

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

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

TDS u/s 195 nor the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is attracted. Regarding genuineness of commission-payment, we observe that the assessee has given sufficient documentary evidences to prove the services of Page 41 of 51 ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. agents and payment of commission. It is also observed that

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

TDS u/s 195 nor the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is attracted. Regarding genuineness of commission-payment, we observe that the assessee has given sufficient documentary evidences to prove the services of Page 41 of 51 ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. agents and payment of commission. It is also observed that

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-:-

Section 35(1)(ii) by providing accommodation entries to donors to enable them to claim false weighted deductions. This is a fresh information received by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment; therefore, the reopening of the assessment is good in law. 5. Regarding Ground No. 2, we find that the similar issue involving M/s Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific

ITO(EXEMPTIONS),, AHMEDABAD vs. CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

131 Taxman 386. In the said judgment, the contention of the Department predicated on double benefit was turned down in the following manner: "3. As stated above, the first question which requires consideration by this Court is: whether depreciation was allowable on the assets, the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income under section

CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

131 Taxman 386. In the said judgment, the contention of the Department predicated on double benefit was turned down in the following manner: "3. As stated above, the first question which requires consideration by this Court is: whether depreciation was allowable on the assets, the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income under section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 32 of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by an assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession. Under this section, for getting depreciation, the following two conditions should be satisfied: (i) The asset in question should be owned by the assessee; and (ii) The asset should