SHRI NARESHKUMAR P. PATEL,,BANASKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PALANPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: The Cit(A), But Without Any Success. The Assessee Is Now In Second Appeal Before Us. Shri Nareshkumar P Patel Vs. Ito Assessment Year : 2011-12 Page 2 Of 5

sections 204 and 205, when the deductor who is liable to deduct the tax at source under Chapter XVII deducts the TDS

BHIKHABHAI HIRABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 04 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

204 of the Act whereby late filing fees of Rs.4,39,245/- was imposed for the FY 2013-14 concerning AY 2014-15. 3. It is the case of the assessee that section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a statement of deduction

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

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1075-1076/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T. Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd., Circle-2(1)(1), G-5,Pariseema Complex, Vs. Ahmedabad-380015 Nr. Swagat Cross Roads, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacg6992L

TDS. Thus, the assessee cannot be penalized if the laborers have raised the bills at the end of the accounting year. 16.10 We also note that the assessee has shown huge turnover from the sale of jewelry amounting to Rs 98.89 crores and against such sale the assessee has claimed Labour expenses only for Rs. 19,20,390/- only which

SHUKAN BUILDERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). AY: 2010-11 ITA No. 1518/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11(Assessee’s Appeal):- The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in 2. confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.62,51,247/- as bogus purchases. 3. The facts

THE DCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHUKAN BUILDERS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). AY: 2010-11 ITA No. 1518/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11(Assessee’s Appeal):- The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in 2. confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.62,51,247/- as bogus purchases. 3. The facts

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

204/- made under Section 14A of the Act, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order. 34. The Ld. A.R. submitted that there was no exempt income in the current A.Y. and there are investments in shares of Foreign Subsidiary Company and to Indian Subsidiary Company. The interest-free funds were in excess of investments in shares and, therefore

SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

204/- made under Section 14A of the Act, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order. 34. The Ld. A.R. submitted that there was no exempt income in the current A.Y. and there are investments in shares of Foreign Subsidiary Company and to Indian Subsidiary Company. The interest-free funds were in excess of investments in shares and, therefore

SHRI GIRISHKUMAR RAMNARAYAN SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, TDS-2, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

204 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that Section 206C(1A) itself does not provide for any time limit within which declaration of buyers in prescribed Form27 for non-collection of TCS is to be made. The main thrust of sub-Section (1A) of Section 206C is to make a declaration as prescribed, upon which liability to collect

M/S. SAKARLAL BALABHAI & COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sakarlal Balabhai & Co. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 1001/6, 10Th Floor, Ankush Apartment, Vs Ward 4(1)(1), 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Grant Road, Ahmedabad Mumbai-400004 Pan : Aadcs 0862 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bimlendu Bhusan, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 20.09.2019 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under:- “1. Learned Cit(A) Has Neither Discussed Anything Related To The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Nor Considered Any Grounds Related To That Raised By The Us For Which Actually Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Claimed That The Appellant Is Involved In Only Investment Activity & Does Not Have Any Business Activity & We Do Not Agree With It.”

Section 194J of the Act. vii. Audit Fees: This was fees paid to auditor and professional service (Tax Consultancy) given to the business. viii. Travelling and Conveyances:- This is travelling expenses paid to employee and other for various business visits and also include reimbursement expenses paid to employee for local travel. ix. Commission Expenses:- During the year

THE DCIT, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. THE GUJARAT CO. OP. MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

204, 3rd Post Box No.10, Amul Floor, S. P. Patel Dairy Road, Anand - Complex, Near Old C. K. 388001 Hall, Mayfair Road, Anand – 388 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAAG5588Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri O. P. Sharma, Sr.D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Sunil H. Talati, A.R. Respondent by : सुनवाई

THE DY. CIT., ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. M/S. EMTICI ENGINEERING LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2774/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

204, 3rd Floor, S.P. Patel Anand-388120 Complex, Near Old C. K. Hall, Mayfair Road, Anand - 388001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACE4642F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri L. P. Jain, Sr.D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.R. Respondent by : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of 25/09/2019 Hearing घोषणा

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

204 ELT 517 (SC) : [2007] 8 RC 1, dealing with the question how a beneficial circular is to be construed, has approached this question in the following manner. At paragraph 13 of the judgment, it is stated that the learned counsel further submitted that the circular being oppressive and against the respondent, has to apply only prospectively and cannot

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

204 ELT 517 (SC) : [2007] 8 RC 1, dealing with the question how a beneficial circular is to be construed, has approached this question in the following manner. At paragraph 13 of the judgment, it is stated that the learned counsel further submitted that the circular being oppressive and against the respondent, has to apply only prospectively and cannot

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore