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

189/- by reducing the claim made u/s.54F of the Act. ITA nos.1908& 1991/AHD/2018 Asstt. Year 2011-12 14 12. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the authorities below by reiterating the findings contained in the respective orders to the extent favourable to him which we have already adverted to in the preceding paragraph. Therefore

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

MIRANT NAVINBHAI PARIKH,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT ,CIRCLE INT.TAXA., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountnat Member & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

189/-. It is submitted that it be so held now. 4.1.The AO has erred in charging interest under section 234C of the Act at Rs.19,257/- as against correct amount of Rs.12,644/-. It is submitted that it be so held now. 5. The Ld.counsel for the assessee Shri Dhinal Shah appearing for the assessee submitted that when the income

VIJAY M.MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

189 taxman.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VIJAY M. MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

189 taxman.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities

ARVIND FASHIONS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. I.T.A No. 913/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 2 Arvind Fashions Ltd. Vs. PCIT 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company engaged in textiles filed its Return of Income

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI VIPINBHAI SOMABHAI PUJARA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

3) read with Section 147 of the Act was passed on 07.11.2016 thereby assessing total income at (-) Rs.10,73,82,285/- thereby making disallowance of Rs.1,63,64,831/- in respect of two interest expenses. 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee

SHRI VIPINBHAI SOMABHAI PUJARA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

3) read with Section 147 of the Act was passed on 07.11.2016 thereby assessing total income at (-) Rs.10,73,82,285/- thereby making disallowance of Rs.1,63,64,831/- in respect of two interest expenses. 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAMESHKUMAR MELAPCHAND SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and Proprietor of M/s Kirtikumar Melapchand engaged in the business of Bullion & Ornaments trading on retail basis since

RAMESHKUMAR MELAPCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and Proprietor of M/s Kirtikumar Melapchand engaged in the business of Bullion & Ornaments trading on retail basis since

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

TDS, and late payment of taxes aggregating to Rs.\n34,56,637/-, which were directly related to specific assets or statutory\nliabilities and had no nexus with earning exempt income. The CIT(A)\naccepted this contention and directed that such interest should be excluded\nfrom the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). On re-computation, the interest\ndisallowance under Rule

R. K. TRADING COMPANY,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT. CIR 5(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2609/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) R. K. Trading Company Dy.Cit बनाम/ 89, Hirabhai Market, Circle – 5(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Diwan Ballubhai Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfr0845B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से / Ms. Anam Benish, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 10/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/12/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.10.2017 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad – 5 (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2016 Passed By The Learned Acit, Circle-5(3), Ahmedabad Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2014-15. Ita No. 2609/Ahd/2017 (R. K. Trading Company Vs. Dcit) A.Y. 2014-15 - 2 - 2. Ground Nos. 1 To 3 Relates To Disallowance Of Donation Given By The Assessee To M/S. Herbicure Healthcare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation, Kolkata. At The Very Threshold Of The Matter, Ld. Advocate Appearing For The Assessee Submitted Before Us That The Issue Is Squarely Covered By The Judgment Passed By The Co-Ordinate Bench In Ita No. 2888/Ahd/2017, On 20.09.2019 In Favour Of The Assessee, Whereas, Ld. Dr Relied Upon The Orders Passed By The Authorities Below.

TDS)" has been submitted. We are hereby submitting herewith the copy of Ledger of all the 3 accounts for your record. Annexure-1 We are submitting herewith copy of bills of expenses booked in Sales Promotion Expenses. Annexure -2 Apart from the above referred bills, assessee also incurred certain expenditure for various visitors (i.e. Customers, suppliers, .consultants etc) who visit

N. K. PROTEINS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

189/-. Thereafter, the Assessment Order was framed under section 143(3) of the Act for the year under consideration at the total income of Rs.15,47,54,611/- after making the addition/disallowances of certain items vide order dated 26.03.2013. 4. Subsequently, the learned Pr. CIT considered the order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS, ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

189/-. Thereafter, the Assessment Order was framed under section 143(3) of the Act for the year under consideration at the total income of Rs.15,47,54,611/- after making the addition/disallowances of certain items vide order dated 26.03.2013. 4. Subsequently, the learned Pr. CIT considered the order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest

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 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 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