LAKHI ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

154(7) of the act state that no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. But in the case of the assessee as per the material on record no intimation was served within the period of 4 years

THE ITO, TDS-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAXMI SALES & ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2008-09

TDS) as per Rule 37C r.w.s. 206C of the I. T. Act and denied the Form 27C filed by the appellant. The appellant stated in his rejoinder that the said declarations were filed with the office of the AO vide covering letter dated 10.04.2015 which was filed on 16.04.2015 and produced the copy of the covering letter

BACKBONE TARMET NG JV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

154 and 264, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Interest, etc., paid to a resident without deduction of tax at source (Deposit of tax) - Whether in view of amended provision of section 40(a)(ia), assessee who had deposited TDS in Government account after end of relevant year but before due date of filing return, was entitled

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)

Section 154 of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR relied on the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) which are as under:- 1. "Kindly refer to your above Notice wherein you have stated that an excess refund of Rs. 39,23,270 in respect of interest paid u/s. 244A has been issued to us and you have proposed

MARKAND INDUPRASAD BHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 501/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2018-2019 Markand Induprasad Bhatt, D.C.I.T., 2, Panchsheel Enclave, Vs. Cpc, Nr. Sundarvan, Bangalore. Satellite Road, Ahmedabad.

154 of the Act, provide the power to income tax authorities to amend any intimation or deemed intimation under section 143(1) of the Act to rectify the mistake apparent from record on its own motion. 6. As such, the details about the salary appearing in form 16 was filed by the employer as well as details of TDS appearing

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

CHIRAG MAHENDRABHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

154 of the I.Tax Act and to allow claim of Refund of Tax, as claimed as per ITR filed. 2. To issue necessary directions to grant credit of TDS of Rs. 78,653/- pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 (out of Total Claim of TDS of Rs. 2,96,734) for which your Appellant has offered Income on cash

DARSHIT GUNWANTBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Darshit Gunantbhai Shah Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) B/2/236, Madhuvrund Society Vs. Ahmedabad. Ghatlodia Ahmedabad 380 061. Pan : Awmps 9760 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 25.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2021– 22, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.4,67,802/- Made Under Section 43B Of The Act By The Was Confirmed.

154 on 01.08.2022, contending that the amount of Rs.4,67,802/- had in fact been paid through various challans before the due date of filing return under section 139(1), but due to inadvertent clerical error, the same was reported in clause 26(B)(b) instead of 26(B)(a). It was submitted that no disallowance under section

DHARTI FOUNDATION,SABARKANTHA vs. THE DY.DIT, CPC PRESENT JURIS. THE ITO, EXEMPTION, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2250/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2022-2023 Dharti Foundation, The Deputy Director Of बनामVs. B/H Kheti Bank, Income Tax, Cpc Chhapariya Char Rasta, Present Jurisdiction, Himatnagar-383001, The Income Tax Officer, Sabarkantha. (Exemption), Palanpur.

154 dated 11.05.2023, allowing TDS credit of Rs.26,697/- 4. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order passed u/s.154 of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: “…5.1.1 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant trust was requested to submit evidence in support of its claim

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

154 proposing to withdraw the interest is void. The return for AY 2011-12 was selected for scrutiny, and an order under section 143(3) was passed on 5th March 2014, raising a demand of ₹1.67 crore. This demand was adjusted against a refund due for AY 2009-10. Subsequently, The Kalupur Commercial Co.op. Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year