THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1`),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

TDS was not required to be deducted. This aspect has been examined ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 20 in host of decisions. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee put reliance upon the order of the ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd., ITA No.634/Ahd/2017. In this order, Tribunal has relied

THE DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

TDS was not required to be deducted. This aspect has been examined ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 20 in host of decisions. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee put reliance upon the order of the ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd., ITA No.634/Ahd/2017. In this order, Tribunal has relied

SHRI VIRAL ASHISH PARIKH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-10,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3505/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Viral Ashish Parikh, The A.C.I.T,(Osd), Ashish Bunglow, Vs. Circle-10, Atira Road, Ahmedabad. Panjarapole Cross Road, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad.

140/- against the sales of ₹ 1,99,55,006/- whereas in the under consideration the assessee has claimed salary expenses amounting to ₹ 76,24,000/- against the sales of ₹ 2,90,91,928/-. Admittedly, the sales and the salary expenses shown by the assessee in the year under consideration have increased in comparison to the immediate preceding assessment year. However

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 311/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 2. 2176/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 3. 2173/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 4. 165/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 5. 287/Ahd/2017 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 6-7 520 & 2013-14 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., 521/Ahd/2018 & Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 8-9 604 & 605/ 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Ahd/2018 & Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K

section 43D is a beneficial provision but the provision iS very clear when it states that " {a} in the case of a scheduled bank the income by way of interest in relation to such categories of bad and^dou^btful debts as may be prescribed having regard to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India in relation

LAXMI PROTEIN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. vs. THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

TDS of Rs. 10,190/- only on commission charges and not deducted tax at source in respect of Rs. 26,10,140/- claiming the same as re-imbursement of expenses for which lower authorities made the addition. 7. In support of its contention, ld. A.R. cited a judgment of Gujarat High Court in the matter of CIT vs. Gujarat Narmada

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

LATE SMT. RAMILABEN HARSHADRAI PATEL(THROUGH L/H DEVRAJ H.PATEL),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 69 of the Act, out of total addition of Rs. 1,65,86,140/- made by the Assessing Officer. ITA No. 1092/Ahd/2023 & 1093/Ahd/2023 & 93/Ahd/2024 Late Smt. Ramilaben Harshadrai Patel (Through L/h. Devraj H. Patel) vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 8– 18. The brief facts with respect to the assessee’s grounds of appeal are that during the course

DEVRAJ HARSHADRAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 69 of the Act, out of total addition of Rs. 1,65,86,140/- made by the Assessing Officer. ITA No. 1092/Ahd/2023 & 1093/Ahd/2023 & 93/Ahd/2024 Late Smt. Ramilaben Harshadrai Patel (Through L/h. Devraj H. Patel) vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 8– 18. The brief facts with respect to the assessee’s grounds of appeal are that during the course

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. DEVRAJ HARSHADRAY PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 69 of the Act, out of total addition of Rs. 1,65,86,140/- made by the Assessing Officer. ITA No. 1092/Ahd/2023 & 1093/Ahd/2023 & 93/Ahd/2024 Late Smt. Ramilaben Harshadrai Patel (Through L/h. Devraj H. Patel) vs. ITO Asst.Year –2016-17 - 8– 18. The brief facts with respect to the assessee’s grounds of appeal are that during the course

SHREE DHAIN AUTO LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE DCIT- CICLE-2(1)(1)), VADODARA

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

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

140/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and Assessing Officer disallowed bonus and incentive expenses of Rs.32,00,000/- u/s. 40A(2)(b). The Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.32,40,223/- on which interest on TDS of Rs. 40,223/- was claimed, but corresponding the income is not offered in the computation of income. 4. Aggrieved

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

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

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

140/- u/s 69A, despite the assessee failed explain the source thereof. 7. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of unexplained cash of Rs.9,00,000/- u/s 69A, despite the assessee failed explain the source thereof 8. On the facts and in the circumstances

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

140/- u/s 69A, despite the assessee failed explain the source thereof. 7. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of unexplained cash of Rs.9,00,000/- u/s 69A, despite the assessee failed explain the source thereof 8. On the facts and in the circumstances

VIRMATI SOFTWARE & TELECOMMUNICATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1135/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Virmati Software & Telecommunication D.C.I.T, Limited, Vs. Cirle-4(1)(2) A-2/3, Arjun Tower, Ahmedabad. Satellite Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380 015. Pan: Aaacv6480G

TDS deducted which comes out at 7% which is lower than the rate of tax in India. Accordingly the assessee claimed the foreign tax credit of Rs. 23,17,075.00 under section 91 of the Act. 10.2 However, the AO disagreed with the contention of the assessee by observing that the tax in the foreign country cannot be applied

TARPAWANKUMAR RAMPRASAD SANDHIR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

140/- vide order dated 21.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) vide his detailed

A. MENARINI INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

140/-. This clearly indicated that the income were shown less to the extent of Rs.6,03,09,004/- alongwith the assessee had also claimed refund of Rs.3,01,67,360/-. Thereafter, the case was rectified u/s 154 and the TDS of Rs.3,01,67,362/- was given and alongwith thereon interest u/s 244A of Rs.22,38,818/- was also granted

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS was made by the Appellant u/s. 195 of the IT. Act. (c) Without prejudice and in the alternative, the learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing further deduction under Chapter VIA (out of total deduction determined earlier at Rs.152,38,78,465/-) from the income added by way of the aforesaid disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i), which formed part

AEROTECH ENTERPRISE ,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 457/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19)

TDS was done on 31.03.2019. So, even this ledger indicates that transactions shown are in the nature of accommodation entry and these are bogus. Nitya Transport 17. The assessee has produced the ledger of Aerotech Enterprises, i.e. the assessee in the books of Nitya Transport whereas in the other cases it has produced the ledger of transporters