ITO, WARD-1, PALANPUR, PALANPUR vs. GELOT AGRI EXPORTS, PALANPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

section 270A of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the assessment framed on the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act additions were made to its income on account of disallowances of expenses on which the assessee had failed to deduct TDS

GELOT AGRI EXPORTS,DEESA vs. ITO WD 1 PALANPUR, BANASKANTHA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

section 270A of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the assessment framed on the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act additions were made to its income on account of disallowances of expenses on which the assessee had failed to deduct TDS

SHRI CHAITANYA BANSIBHAI. NAGORI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

143(3) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 10/08/2017 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and direction of the Ld. Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment, by passing the Order U/s 263 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25/03/2020.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a doctor (Gynecologist

OM YASH PROJECTS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.40/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2023-24 Om Yash Projects Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Office No. 1113, Aaron Spectra, बनाम/ Ward-3(1)(1), V/S. Rajpath Rangoli Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aacco4734C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kaushik Kejriwal & Ms. Kushboo Shah, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Additional / Joint From The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Dated 26.11.2024, In Connection With The Intimation Under Section 143(1) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2023-24, Issued By The Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bangalore, Dated 09.01.2024. Om Yash Projects Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2023-24

TDS credit under section 143(1), as such an adjustment requires detailed verification under scrutiny assessment (section 143(3)). The assessee

TEXRAJ REALTY PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16

TDS claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.9,05,000/- and allowed in assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act with

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 143(1) of the Act. The relevant undisputed submission of the assessee reads as under: We enclosed herewith intimation u/s 143(1} of the Act in the-.case of SEEMA-HOLDING (P) LTD for A Y 2012-13 in which its total income has been accepted and a TDS

KAILASH NARAYAN SHRIDHAR,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY CIT CIRCLE 4(1), VADODARA

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

143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 06.03.2023. In the said\nintimation, CPC restricted the assessee's claim of exemption under\nsection 10(10AA)(ii) to Rs.3,00,000/- as against Rs.17,71,010/- claimed,\nthereby disallowing Rs.14,71,010/-. Consequently, the income under the\nhead \"Salaries” was enhanced from Rs.72,98,447/- to Rs.87,69,457/-,\nresulting

THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS, a sum of ₹16,00,00,000/- as advance tax, and a sum of ₹1,90,00,000/- as self-assessment tax, which was paid on 30th July 2011. The return was processed under section 143

GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPN.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-1, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms.Madhumita Roy"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Pcit-I Corporation Ltd. Vadodra Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Race Course Circle, Baroda. Pan : Aabcg 4029 R "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Deputy Corporation Ltd. Commissioner Of Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Income Tax, Circle Race Course Circle, Baroda. 1(1)(1), Vadodra Pan : Aabcg 4029 R Baroda.

TDS deductions were submitted to the AO, and the AO had considered the same, and finding no error, he passed assessment order under section 143

GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms.Madhumita Roy"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Pcit-I Corporation Ltd. Vadodra Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Race Course Circle, Baroda. Pan : Aabcg 4029 R "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Deputy Corporation Ltd. Commissioner Of Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Income Tax, Circle Race Course Circle, Baroda. 1(1)(1), Vadodra Pan : Aabcg 4029 R Baroda.

TDS deductions were submitted to the AO, and the AO had considered the same, and finding no error, he passed assessment order under section 143

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2014-15 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd. Ahmedabad. ‘Apollo House’ Rashmi Society Nr.Mithakhali Six Roads Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacg 7248 P

section 143(1) of the Act, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee has paid payment of commission of Rs.18,84,793/- on export sales on which TDS

LESSO BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

TDS") amounting to INR 277,599 as claimed by the Appellant in its return of income. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee filed its Return of Income claiming the loss of Rs. 30.65 crores. The CPC vide its intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 10-08-2021 determined the loss

TORRENT ENERGY LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH TORRENT POWER LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Torrent Energy Limited The Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) (Now Merged With Torrent Power Ltd) Ahmedabad. Samanvay, 600, Tapovan Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Pan : Aacct 8570 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

143(3) read with section 254 of the Act is patently in disregard of the binding directions issued by the Co- ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1562/Ahd/2015 dated 19.03.2019. It was submitted that in para 11.1 and 11.2 of its order the Bench had categorically restored the matter to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of examining

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1) NOW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nirma Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-380 009 Circle-3(1)(1), Pan : Aaacn 5350 K Ahmedabad-380009 अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 10.04.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Follows:-

143 or section 144, it is only on the date the assessment is made that the deeming fiction contained under section 244A(2) comes 11 Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT AY : 2013-14 into play and the self-assessment tax is deemed to have been paid towards the regular assessment. It is, therefore, on the date of the regular assessment that

TULSI REALITY,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.134/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulsi Reality The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ G5 Anand Deep Complex Vadodara – 390 007 V/S. Gotri Road (Gujarat) Gotri, Vadodara – 390 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafft 8908 B (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 12.12.2019. Tulsi Reality Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Asst. Year : 2017-18

143(3) of the Act by adding Rs.8,661/- being interest and penalty on TDS and not admissible expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. 2.1. Subsequently, the PCIT invoked the powers under Section

SHREE HARI ENTERPRISE ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nfollowing terms:\n\ni) Issue No

section 143(3) of the Act for the impugned assessment year in the case of the assessee, noting several errors in the same causing prejudice to the Revenue. The errors related to payment of rent and professional charges being made without deduction of TDS

HIMANSHU ENGINEERING WORKS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(7) PRESENT WARD- 3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

TDS Rate] = Rs.2,92,38,879 - shown 48,54,918 = Rs.2,43,83,961) 7. Learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition made by A.O. Rs.30,00,000/- on the ground that assessee received cash loan on advance and repaid the same during year by attracting provisions of Section 40A(3) on assumptions and Provisions u/s.269SS/269T

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHATHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

143(1) dated 03/05/2011 Less: credits claimed w/s. 1154- 14 for DDT paid by the subsidiaries companies German Remedies Limited, 1,20,00,000/- 20,39,400/- Mumbai (wholly owned subsidiary) paid on 03.08.2009 Zydus Wellness Ltd (70% holding) 4,11,48,207/- 63.93.138/- paid on 03.06.2009 Zydus Animal Health Ltd. (wholly 4,41,59,816/- 75,04,960/- owned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL

Accordingly dismissed.\n18.9 Based on the findings and conclusions set out hereinabove, the\nappeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by\nthe assessee is partly allowed

143(3) by the Assessing\nOfficer, vide order dated 29.12.2018, determining the total income at\nRs.22,74,37,450/- after making aggregate additions/disallowances of\nRs.7,94,75,390/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also\ninitiated on various additions. In the course of assessment proceedings, a\nseparate penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b) was also initiated