M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2021/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ (On Behalf Of Amalgamating Cricle-1(3), Vs. 1St Floor, B-109, Company, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. 801-804, 8Th Floor, Abhishree Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Ahmedabad-380015 Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9421H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

133 to 165 of the Paper Book. Similarly, the AO has also recorded in his order the nature of business of the assessee i.e. stock broking. Even in the earlier Assessment Year 2006-07, the impugned loss was also treated as speculative in nature but the Learned CIT (A) deleted the same as the assessee was able to justify

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 133(6) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A), after an elaborate examination of facts and documentary evidence, deleted the addition by recording detailed factual findings as under:- “6.1 The only substantial ground

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

section 133(6) was duly complied with where Seema Holding confirmed the investment made in assessee share capital which was further confirmed by furnishing the notarized affidavit. From the submission of the assessee, we also find that the investor company for the year under consideration has shown interest income of Rs. 86,89,155/- on which TDS

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

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

133(6) of the Act. it is also pertinent to observe that quantum of income mentioned in the return of income cannot be criteria to judge creditworthiness of share applicants. In the case of M/s.Ami Industries (India) P.Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also considered this aspect. In that case also, existence of share applicants

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

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

133(6) of the Act. it is also pertinent to observe that quantum of income mentioned in the return of income cannot be criteria to judge creditworthiness of share applicants. In the case of M/s.Ami Industries (India) P.Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also considered this aspect. In that case also, existence of share applicants

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

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

133(6) of the Act. it is also pertinent to observe that quantum of income mentioned in the return of income cannot be criteria to judge creditworthiness of share applicants. In the case of M/s.Ami Industries (India) P.Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also considered this aspect. In that case also, existence of share applicants

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SARAS SPICES & FOOD PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 478/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015

TDS. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal. 3. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,44,07,768/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

SHREE SARAS SPICES & FOODS P. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 478/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015

TDS. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal. 3. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,44,07,768/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

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 proceedings, as against five unsecured creditors, the Assessing Officer has made addition only on two unsecured creditors, namely

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 proceedings, as against five unsecured creditors, the Assessing Officer has made addition only on two unsecured creditors, namely

NILESH AMRITLAL PARIKH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1)(PREVIOUSLY ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 133(6), it does not automatically render the transaction non-genuine. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that TDS

ITO, WARD - 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE GAYATRI COTTEX ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 133(6) notices during the assessment proceedings. (ii) the assessee failed to produce primary evidence, such as invoices, delivery challans, and payment proofs, to establish the genuineness of the purchases. (iii) Mere furnishing of ledger confirmations at the appellate stage cannot replace the requirement of primary documentary evidence. Further, TDS

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. CREDO REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD(NOW AS M/S. CSBPROJECT PVT. LTD), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

TDS issue, the Tribunal held them to be genuine expenses and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(2)", "142(1)", "133

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

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

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

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

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

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

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

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

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

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

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

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

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

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

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India