THE JT. CIT (OSD) KHEDA RANGE, NADIAD vs. ADF FOODS LIMITED, NADIAD

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee as well as one appeal filed by the Revenue are set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the matters as per law

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

220(2) of the Act on delayed payment of tax though the same is not in the nature of penalty. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs.1,37,87,905/- invoking section 40(a)(i) for non-deductiori of TDS

ADF FOODS LTD.,,NADIAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KHEDA CIRCLE,, NADIAD

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee as well as one appeal filed by the Revenue are set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the matters as per law

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

220(2) of the Act on delayed payment of tax though the same is not in the nature of penalty. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs.1,37,87,905/- invoking section 40(a)(i) for non-deductiori of TDS

ADF FOODS LTD.,,NADIAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KHEDA CIRCLE,, NADIAD

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee as well as one appeal filed by the Revenue are set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the matters as per law

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

220(2) of the Act on delayed payment of tax though the same is not in the nature of penalty. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs.1,37,87,905/- invoking section 40(a)(i) for non-deductiori of TDS

ADF FOODS LTD.,,NADIAD vs. THE DCIT, KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee as well as one appeal filed by the Revenue are set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the matters as per law

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

220(2) of the Act on delayed payment of tax though the same is not in the nature of penalty. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs.1,37,87,905/- invoking section 40(a)(i) for non-deductiori of TDS

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.

220/- Sales Promotion Expenses (NIL TDS) A/c - Rs. 35,91,147/- Sales Promotion Expenses (Cont) A/c - Rs. 9,87,018/- However, it seems that while submitting the. details," ledger account of only "Sales Promotion Expenses (NIL TDS)" has been submitted. We are hereby submitting herewith the copy of Ledger of all the 3 accounts for your record. Annexure

ROTOMAG MOTORS & CONTROLS (P) LTD.,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

Appeal is allowed

section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) in the present case. The suo\nmotu disallowance of Rs. 1,60,838/- offered by the assessee in respect of\nadministrative expenditure is reasonable. We accordingly direct deletion of\nthe disallowance of Rs. 11,97,333/- sustained by the CIT(A). These grounds\nof appeal are allowed.\n6.5 Issue No. 5 – Addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEENDAYAL PORT AUTHORITY , GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.150/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18

220. Subsequently, the CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad, invoked section 263 of the Act and set aside the order passed under section 143(3) of the Act on the ground that the AO had not properly examined certain issues, including the disallowance of CSR expenses. Pursuant to the revisionary order under section 263 of the Act, the AO passed a fresh assessment

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PUSHPRAJ CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2011-12

220/-. ACIT vs. Pushparaj Corporation Page 4 of 10 4. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the additions as made by the AO were deleted. Grounds 1 and 2 5. The first two grounds taken

LIKHMI CHAND SHARMA,BHARATPUR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(7), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyallikhmi Chand Sharma, Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/O. Jngoyal & Company, Ward 4 (1)(7), C-162, Ranjeet Nagar, Vadodara Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001 [Pan :Bsrps 8059 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025

TDS accordingly, while the assessee had declared significantly lower income, resulting in a refund claim. Based on this discrepancy, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148A and issued notice under Section 148. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B on 24.03.2023, adding Rs.35,42,665/- as undisclosed salary income and determining

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

TDS 34,146 10 Disallowance of Bonus and Leave 6,14,958 Encashment u/s.43B 11 Disallowance of Provision for Excise Duty 2,96,220 u/s.43B 12 Disallowance of interest towards China 10,37,451 Project 13 Disallowance of prepaid Insurance 2,39,630/- 14 Disallowance u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Act. 20,26,491/- 15 Disallowance u/s.14A

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

TDS 34,146 10 Disallowance of Bonus and Leave 6,14,958 Encashment u/s.43B 11 Disallowance of Provision for Excise Duty 2,96,220 u/s.43B 12 Disallowance of interest towards China 10,37,451 Project 13 Disallowance of prepaid Insurance 2,39,630/- 14 Disallowance u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Act. 20,26,491/- 15 Disallowance u/s.14A

PARIMAL CHANDRAKANT ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

220 ITR 657), wherein it was held that the ITO is expected to make an enquiry of a particular item of income and if he does not make an enquiry as expected, that would be a ground for Commissioner of Income Tax to interfere under section 263 holding that the assessment order passed by the A.O. is an erroneous

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. We find that the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation offered by the assessee solely on the ground that in some cases, the lenders had filed returns with low income or had not filed returns at all. However, the identity of the lenders was not in dispute and the transactions were through banking channels. There is no adverse material brought

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. We find that the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation offered by the assessee solely on the ground that in some cases, the lenders had filed returns with low income or had not filed returns at all. However, the identity of the lenders was not in dispute and the transactions were through banking channels. There is no adverse material brought

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. We find that the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation offered by the assessee solely on the ground that in some cases, the lenders had filed returns with low income or had not filed returns at all. However, the identity of the lenders was not in dispute and the transactions were through banking channels. There is no adverse material brought

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. We find that the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation offered by the assessee solely on the ground that in some cases, the lenders had filed returns with low income or had not filed returns at all. However, the identity of the lenders was not in dispute and the transactions were through banking channels. There is no adverse material brought

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. We find that the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation offered by the assessee solely on the ground that in some cases, the lenders had filed returns with low income or had not filed returns at all. However, the identity of the lenders was not in dispute and the transactions were through banking channels. There is no adverse material brought

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

220,39,59,249 1.1. The learned AO / TPO has erred on the facts and in law and learned DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the AO / TPO on the fact and in law in applying the transfer pricing ('TP') provisions and making a TP adjustment of Rs.215,34,57,741 to the value of international transactions