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

EXPRESS CARGO CARRIERS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

TDS default pertains to procedure, then the provisions of section 4(a)(ia) does not become applicable and the decisions of the same were also submitted. In the light of the above facts and submission, it is respectfully submitted that the addition made by the learned A.O. under section 40(a)(ia) totalling to Rs.1,28,93,652/- is required

LUBRIZOL ADVANCED MATERIALS INC.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2455/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Lubrizol Advanced Materials Inc., A.C.I.T(International C/O. 6Th & 7Th Floor, Vs. Taxation), Jaswanti Landmark, Vadodara. Mehra Industrial Estate, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aabcl7375B

234D of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has not received any refund not has it received any intimation under Section 245 of IT Act for adjustment of refund. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

TDS which was reflected in Form 26AS has to be granted fully by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant entire credit which is reflected Form 26AS. Ground No. 9 of A.Y. 2017- 18 is partly allowed. 35. As regards to Ground No. 7 of Assessment Year 2018-19, interest under Section 234D

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

TDS which was reflected in Form 26AS has to be granted fully by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant entire credit which is reflected Form 26AS. Ground No. 9 of A.Y. 2017- 18 is partly allowed. 35. As regards to Ground No. 7 of Assessment Year 2018-19, interest under Section 234D

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

TDS which was reflected in Form 26AS has to be granted fully by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant entire credit which is reflected Form 26AS. Ground No. 9 of A.Y. 2017- 18 is partly allowed. 35. As regards to Ground No. 7 of Assessment Year 2018-19, interest under Section 234D

RAYMON PATEL GELATINE PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

TDS is required to be deducted. In this aspect, the appellant was asked to explain the nature of services rendered by this person to the appellant and to submit the copy of agreement with this person. In this aspect, Shri Bhavin Marafatia, C.A., appeared with Shri M. P. Ramdas, Finance Manager and filed a written submission on 15.03.2012. In this

RAYMON PATEL GELATINE PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Mrs.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

TDS is required to be deducted. In this aspect, the appellant was asked to explain the nature of services rendered by this person to the appellant and to submit the copy of agreement with this person. In this aspect, Shri Bhavin Marafatia, C.A., appeared with Shri M. P. Ramdas, Finance Manager and filed a written submission on 15.03.2012. In this

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” Ground No.1:- This ground relates to disallowance under Section 14A 4. of the Act. ITA Nos.318&414/Ahd/2020 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT/DCIT

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

234D of Rs.2,95,121/- imposed on the appellant by the Assessing Officer while disposing off rectification application.” 3. The issue in the present appeal relates to rectification sought by the assessee by moving an application u/s 154 of the Act which was rejected consistently, both by the Assessing Officer and in first appeal by the ld. CIT(A), holding

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

TDS where\napplicable, and that the quantitative tally of consumption and\nclosing stock was fully maintained and verified by statutory\nauditors. The assessee also submitted comparative GP/NP ratios\nfor past years and argued that the GP rate of 12.5% applied by\nthe AO was wholly arbitrary and unsupported by historical data.\n12. We note that the CIT(A) while giving

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

TDS where\napplicable, and that the quantitative tally of consumption and\nclosing stock was fully maintained and verified by statutory\nauditors. The assessee also submitted comparative GP/NP ratios\nfor past years and argued that the GP rate of 12.5% applied by\nthe AO was wholly arbitrary and unsupported by historical data.\n12. We note that the CIT(A) while giving

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

TDS where applicable, and that the quantitative tally of consumption and closing stock was fully maintained and verified by statutory auditors. The assessee also submitted comparative GP/NP ratios for past years and argued that the GP rate of 12.5% applied by the AO was wholly arbitrary and unsupported by historical data.\n12. We note that the CIT(A) while giving

ARVIND LIFESYLE BRANDS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act for non-deduction of tax at source 4 In law, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned N.A. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of A.O in levying interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D when no such interest is chargeable. It may be deleted

LAXMANJI KHODAJI SOLANKI (THAKOR),GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 115BBE of\nthe Act.\n\n8. Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C & 234D are\nunjustified.\n\n9. Initiation of penalty u/s 271F is unjustified.\n\n10. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is unjustified.\"\n\n5. The appeal is filed belatedly before us by a delay of 198\ndays. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that

THE ITO, WARD-8(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL PLASTOMERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

234D is not justified. 7. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified.” 6. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee contest the order of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming disallowance of the bad debts written-off amounting to Rs. 3,90,76,843/- by the A.O. 7. The order of the Assessing Officer reveals

VISHAL PLASTOMERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

234D is not justified. 7. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified.” 6. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee contest the order of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming disallowance of the bad debts written-off amounting to Rs. 3,90,76,843/- by the A.O. 7. The order of the Assessing Officer reveals

SHAH PATEL & COMPANY,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshah Patel & Company, Income Tax Officer, Vs. S.No.740/53, Under Sarangpur Ward-5(2)(4), Bridge, Opp. Anand Cloth Market, Ahmedabad. Sarangpur, Ahmedabad-380002. [Pan :Aagfs5763 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S N Divatia With Shri Samir Vora, Ars Respondent By: Shri B P Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

234D which is unjustified and uncalled for.” Shah Patel & Company Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co-operative Housing Society. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 06.11.2017, declaring total income of Rs.20,53,560/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing