M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS at Rs. 1,46,141/- and addition in respect of bad debt of Rs. 10,60,667/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). After giving effect to CIT(A) order total income was reduced to Rs. nil after setting off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,06,93,299/-. 3.3 The case of the assessee

ACIT, (INT. TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD vs. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). On verification of the remittances made and withholding tax deducted by the assessee, the AO was of the view that the assessee had made remittances to four parties of USA, one-party of Canada and one-party of Mexico for clinical trials, in respect of which no tax was deducted

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, (INTL.TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). On verification of the remittances made and withholding tax deducted by the assessee, the AO was of the view that the assessee had made remittances to four parties of USA, one-party of Canada and one-party of Mexico for clinical trials, in respect of which no tax was deducted

INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS has been deducted on the income earned by the AEs on account of GHO and RHO services and requisite compliances have been done by the AEs in India. 16. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / TPO / DRP has erred in ignoring Rule of consistency in view of the fact that

INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ADDIT.CIT , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS has been deducted on the income earned by the AEs on account of GHO and RHO services and requisite compliances have been done by the AEs in India. 12. That the AO / TPO / DRP has erred in law and on facts in ignoring Rule of consistency in view of the fact that no adjustment was made by the Learned

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)

241 (Delhi) vi) Marathon Electric India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2020) ITA No. 5257/Del/2011 (Mum.Tri.) vii) DCIT vs. Rabo India Finance Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 420 (Mum. Tri.) viii) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 133 taxmann.com 500 (Ahd. Tri.) The Ld. AR also relied upon the following cases wherein it was categorically held that the TPO cannot hold

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)

241 (Delhi) vi) Marathon Electric India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2020) ITA No. 5257/Del/2011 (Mum.Tri.) vii) DCIT vs. Rabo India Finance Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 420 (Mum. Tri.) viii) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 133 taxmann.com 500 (Ahd. Tri.) The Ld. AR also relied upon the following cases wherein it was categorically held that the TPO cannot hold

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)

241 (Delhi) vi) Marathon Electric India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2020) ITA No. 5257/Del/2011 (Mum.Tri.) vii) DCIT vs. Rabo India Finance Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 420 (Mum. Tri.) viii) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 133 taxmann.com 500 (Ahd. Tri.) The Ld. AR also relied upon the following cases wherein it was categorically held that the TPO cannot hold

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

Section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made following disallowances: - Total income as per return of income 1,27,99,512/- Add: Additions/Disallowables as discussed above 1 Disallowance u/s.10A 1,33,37,787 2 Interest Disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) 3,19,556 3 Miscellaneous Expenses 1,00,000 4 License Fee 1,23,890 5 Disallowance

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

Section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made following disallowances: - Total income as per return of income 1,27,99,512/- Add: Additions/Disallowables as discussed above 1 Disallowance u/s.10A 1,33,37,787 2 Interest Disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) 3,19,556 3 Miscellaneous Expenses 1,00,000 4 License Fee 1,23,890 5 Disallowance

SHRI CHIRAG P. PATNI,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4),, BARODA

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

Bench: This Tribunal & Before We Take Up The Grounds Raised By The Assessee, It Will Be Relevant To Recapitulate The Facts Of The Case.

TDS. 2. Holding that legal issues and reliance on judgments applicable to the facts of appellant case cannot be raised before him. Shri Chirag P.Patni vs. ITO Asst.Year 2005-06 3. Not granting the relief by ignoring the territorial tribunal judgment and other judgments squarely applicable to facts of appellant's case. 4. Not considering the submission of appellant That

COSMOS ENGITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarcosmos Engitech Private Ltd., The Assistant Vs. Plot No.85/2, Cosmos House, Commissioner Padra Road, Atladara, Of Income Tax, Vadodara-380015. Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara. [Pan :Aaacc7647 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 35(1)(ii) by providing accommodation entries to donors to enable them to claim false weighted deductions. This is a fresh information received by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment; therefore, the reopening of the assessment is good in law. 5. Regarding Ground No. 2, we find that the similar issue involving M/s Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

TDS of Rs. 15,07,07,071/- instead of Rs. 15,26,74,4887- claimed by the appellant in its Return of Income filed for A. Y. 2014-15. 10. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s. 234B and u/s 234C. 11. That the learned Assessing Officer erred

BRIGHTECH VALVES & CONTROLS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.52/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Brightech Valves & Controls Vs. Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No.345, Gidc Kathwada. Income Tax, Kathwada, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-382430. Ahmedabad.

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act. It is therefore prayed that the said order suitably modified. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 and issuance of notice u/s. 148 and Asst.Year

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

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

TDS and TCS of Rs 9,02,68,127/- in the tax computation even though duly granted under an intimation processed u/s 143(1) by the CPC. 12. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in not allowing credit for relief claimed u/s 90 of Rs. 37,46,819/-. 13. That the learned Assessing Officer erred

DISHA RESOURCES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARIHANT AVENUES AND CREDIT LIMITED.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On 27/01/2015, the Investigation Wing Kolkata conducted survey and recorded statement of Founder and Secretary Smt. Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar who has signed the donation receipt was recorded in which she accepted that the said institute is engaged in providing bills in guise of Donation and money is routed back

DISHA RESOURCES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ARIHANT AVENUES AND CREDIT LIMITED.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On 27/01/2015, the Investigation Wing Kolkata conducted survey and recorded statement of Founder and Secretary Smt. Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar who has signed the donation receipt was recorded in which she accepted that the said institute is engaged in providing bills in guise of Donation and money is routed back

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 33 of Revenue Act the appellant has incurred several i.e. expenses which were paid by Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel. Further with regard to the land leveling and development expenses of Rs.65 lakhs it is submitted that Shri Jaswantbhai D. Patel has spent this amount during the period 2000 to 2005 and the land leveling work carried by Shri Dineshbhai