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

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 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

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

SHYAM REALTIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRLCE-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1387/Ahd/2024 & 1388/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shyam Realities The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Tejendra Arcade Circle-2(2)(1) V/S. Ganji Farak Mill Compound Ahmedabad – 380 015 Rakhiyal Cross Road Rakhiyal, Ahmedabad – 380 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abvfs 2603 M (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017–18 & 2018–19 Are Directed Against The Respective Appellate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 27.06.2024. In The Impugned Orders, The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans To The Extent Of Rs.36,69,000/- For A.Y. 2017–18 & Rs.38,94,295/- For A.Y. 2018–19, As Originally Disallowed By

204,97,229/- Rs. 51,04,16,994/- Income CIT(A)’s 1. Addition u/s 68 deleted 1. WIP addition of Rs. decision 14.69 Cr deleted 2. Interest disallowance Rs. 2. Section 269SS 36,69,000/- sustained addition of Rs. 33.90 Cr deleted 3. Bogus purchase addition deleted 3. Interest disallowance of Rs. 38,94,295/- sustained Key reasons Failure

SHYAM REALTIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRLCE-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1387/Ahd/2024 & 1388/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shyam Realities The Dy.Cit, बनाम/ Tejendra Arcade Circle-2(2)(1) V/S. Ganji Farak Mill Compound Ahmedabad – 380 015 Rakhiyal Cross Road Rakhiyal, Ahmedabad – 380 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abvfs 2603 M (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2017–18 & 2018–19 Are Directed Against The Respective Appellate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 27.06.2024. In The Impugned Orders, The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Disallowance Of Interest On Unsecured Loans To The Extent Of Rs.36,69,000/- For A.Y. 2017–18 & Rs.38,94,295/- For A.Y. 2018–19, As Originally Disallowed By

204,97,229/- Rs. 51,04,16,994/- Income CIT(A)’s 1. Addition u/s 68 deleted 1. WIP addition of Rs. decision 14.69 Cr deleted 2. Interest disallowance Rs. 2. Section 269SS 36,69,000/- sustained addition of Rs. 33.90 Cr deleted 3. Bogus purchase addition deleted 3. Interest disallowance of Rs. 38,94,295/- sustained Key reasons Failure

AMJAY MEDIMAX INDIA PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

204/- A.Y. 2009-10 Page 2 of 4 iii) AIR Information 13,200/- iv) Interest Income of Rs.6,13,116/- v) Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs.7,19,385/-” 4. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income. Accordingly, a notice under Section 274 read with Section

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)

Section 194C(b) of the Act and submitted that the transporters were having less than 10 carriages and, therefore, there was no requirement to deduct TDS. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and materials brought on record. The assessee has filed a paper book containing 1 to 80 pages wherein copy of certain invoices and other details

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

204 in which also the Court had observed that where the assessee did not make any claim for exemption, section 14A could have no application. 210.1 In view of the above, there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee was not supposed to make any disallowance in the return of income under the provisions of section 14A read

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

204 in which also the Court had observed that where the assessee did not make any claim for exemption, section 14A could have no application. 210.1 In view of the above, there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee was not supposed to make any disallowance in the return of income under the provisions of section 14A read

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

204/- (after rectification order by the AO) by observing in Para 10.12 on Page 93 of the appellant order that “the AO to be appears be justified in holding that either these loans are sham / fictitious or mere accommodation entries and whatever be the actual facts, are hit by the provisions of section 68/69A of the Act because based

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

204 Relevant extracts from bank statement of the lender are attached vide Paper book Page No. 205 – 209 6 Ubedutla Kothi 3,00,000 A statement giving explanation on source of loan is attached herewith vide Paper Book Page no.214 IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals - HK Ispat Pvt Ltd Asst.Year

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

204 Relevant extracts from bank statement of the lender are attached vide Paper book Page No. 205 – 209 6 Ubedutla Kothi 3,00,000 A statement giving explanation on source of loan is attached herewith vide Paper Book Page no.214 IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals - HK Ispat Pvt Ltd Asst.Year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

204 Relevant extracts from bank statement of the lender are attached vide Paper book Page No. 205 – 209 6 Ubedutla Kothi 3,00,000 A statement giving explanation on source of loan is attached herewith vide Paper Book Page no.214 IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals - HK Ispat Pvt Ltd Asst.Year

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

TDS, therefore, was not warranted. Moreover, the cost incurred by the assessee for availing finance was not strictly in the nature of interest and the party selling the goods having offered the same for taxation, there is no obligation of deduction of tax at source by the assessee. Having regard to all these facts of the case

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

TDS, therefore, was not warranted. Moreover, the cost incurred by the assessee for availing finance was not strictly in the nature of interest and the party selling the goods having offered the same for taxation, there is no obligation of deduction of tax at source by the assessee. Having regard to all these facts of the case

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

TDS, therefore, was not warranted. Moreover, the cost incurred by the assessee for availing finance was not strictly in the nature of interest and the party selling the goods having offered the same for taxation, there is no obligation of deduction of tax at source by the assessee. Having regard to all these facts of the case