SAGAR POWERTEX PVT. LTD. (EARLIER SAGAR AGENCIES PVT.LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.304/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Sagar Powertex Pvt. Ltd., J.C.I.T., (Earlier Sagar Agencies Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Range-8, 803, Sahajanand Complex, Ahmedabad. Shahibaug Road, Shahiibaug Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aadcs0473P

239 ITR 775 (SC) referred to above and other decisions cited by the learned authorised representative, I hold that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this ground is not justified and hence the same is directed to be deleted. 22. 2 In the present case it is not disputed that investment was made by the assessee in purchase

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

239 and section 155(14) of the Income tax Act, 1961.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was initially assessed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 28/12/2019, determining an assessed income of Rs.9,15,21,29,220. Subsequently, the CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad, invoked section 263 of the Act and set aside

SHRI BALASHAH BAVA SANSTHA SARVAJANIK TRUST,ANAND vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

239 had existed on the Statute book, it is found that the prescription of two years would not sustain even when viewed in the backdrop of that provision as it existed at the relevant time. The outer limit which came to be constructed by CBDT could have at best been shored by section 119. However and was noticed

SHRI BALASHAH BAVA SANSTHA SARVAJANIK TRUST,ANAND vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

239 had existed on the Statute book, it is found that the prescription of two years would not sustain even when viewed in the backdrop of that provision as it existed at the relevant time. The outer limit which came to be constructed by CBDT could have at best been shored by section 119. However and was noticed

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

TDS under the provisions of section 194(I) of the Act on the amount of lease premium and therefore the same cannot be allowed as deduction under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 10. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before us: 11. The learned AR before

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

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

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

Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law.” ix. M/s. Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these

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

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

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

Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law.” ix. M/s. Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14A does not arise at all as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of group concern of the appellant namely Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No 239 of 2014. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.39,72,461/- even otherwise requires to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14A does not arise at all as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of group concern of the appellant namely Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No 239 of 2014. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.39,72,461/- even otherwise requires to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14A does not arise at all as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of group concern of the appellant namely Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No 239 of 2014. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.39,72,461/- even otherwise requires to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14A does not arise at all as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of group concern of the appellant namely Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No 239 of 2014. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.39,72,461/- even otherwise requires to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14A does not arise at all as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of group concern of the appellant namely Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No 239 of 2014. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.39,72,461/- even otherwise requires to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14A does not arise at all as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of group concern of the appellant namely Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No 239 of 2014. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.39,72,461/- even otherwise requires to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14A does not arise at all as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of group concern of the appellant namely Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No 239 of 2014. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.39,72,461/- even otherwise requires to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14A does not arise at all as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of group concern of the appellant namely Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No 239 of 2014. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.39,72,461/- even otherwise requires to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 14A does not arise at all as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of group concern of the appellant namely Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal No 239 of 2014. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.39,72,461/- even otherwise requires to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred

M/S. JUGALKISHORE R. AGRAWAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,DEESA vs. THE JT. CIT, B.K.RANGE,, PALANPUR

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

TDS from payment made to transporters and erred in not properly appreciating the explanation and submission of the appellant. 4) The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. The assessee has taken primarily three grounds of appeal, which shall be taken

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 –

239 ITR 775(SC) 3. Kerala State Industrial Development Corpn Ltd Vs CIT 259 ITR 51(SC) 4. Bajaj Tempo Ltd Vs CIT 196 ITR 188(SC) 5. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Others Vs CIT 227 ITR 414(SC) 6. CIT Vs Strawboard Manufacturing Co Ltd 177 ITR 431(SC) However, such plea taken by the assessee

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 –

239 ITR 775(SC) 3. Kerala State Industrial Development Corpn Ltd Vs CIT 259 ITR 51(SC) 4. Bajaj Tempo Ltd Vs CIT 196 ITR 188(SC) 5. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Others Vs CIT 227 ITR 414(SC) 6. CIT Vs Strawboard Manufacturing Co Ltd 177 ITR 431(SC) However, such plea taken by the assessee