SUZLON GUJARAT WIND PARK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above\nterms

TDS credit of ₹1,11,297/-,\nwas not claimed in the original return filed under section 139(1) but was\nintroduced only in the revised return filed under section 139(5). As per the\nstatutory provision of section 244A

THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS, a sum of ₹16,00,00,000/- as advance tax, and a sum of ₹1,90,00,000/- as self-assessment tax, which was paid on 30th July 2011. The return was processed under section 143(1) by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) on 7th August 2012, resulting in a refund of ₹93,20,690/-. Thereafter, the case

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHATHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

TDS, TCS. Advance Tax or Self- Assessment Tax paid u/s 140A. 4. Proviso to Sec. 244A(1) as relied upon is not applicable to the facts of the case, which is in fact governed by the provisions of Sec. 244A(1)(h), being in any other case. The amount of Rs. 75,04,960/-as determined to be refundable

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

Appeal is allowed

TDS (Rs. 3,693/-).\niv.\nDisallowance of medical expenses of directors as non-business\nexpenditure u/s 37(1) (Rs. 1,00,901/-).\nV.\nDisallowance of expenditure u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D (Rs. 11,97,333/-).\nvi.\nAddition of interest income as per Form 26AS treated as undisclosed\nreceipts (Rs. 19,44,030/-).\nvii.\nDisallowance of provision for warranty expenses as contingent

TOSHIBA TECHNICAL SERVICES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. THE ADIT.,(INTL.TAXN.)-2, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year :2015-16 Toshiba Technical Services Vs. Acit, International International Corporation Taxation-2 (India Project Office) Ahmedabad. B-/12 Vijay Wadi Niwas Chs Ltd. Lokmanya Tilak Road Mulund East, Mumbai Pan : Aabct 9577 D

TDS to the extent of Rs. 2,29,07,477. 5. Interest under section 234D The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. 6. Interest under section 244A The learned AO erred in not correctly granting the interest under section 244A of the Act. 7. Levy of penalty under section 271(l)(c) That

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

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

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

244A thereby assessed the total income at Rs. 98,41,250/-. 3.1. Perusal of the above assessment order by the Ld. PCIT, the assessee had sold a residential flats in Mumbai on 20.12.2014 for a consideration of Rs. 2.66 crores jointly with others and assesee’s 20% share was Rs. 53,20,000/-. The assessee has not offered the long

VEER PLASTICS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT -4, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

244A of Rs. 4,83,616/- on the income tax refund which has already been included in total income assessed by AO; in utter disregard to the fact that in the course of original assessment proceedings, the AO has made necessary enquiries on all the above issues and after due verification, he has taken a conscious decision in accordance with

TORRENT SOLARGEN LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 90/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Torrent Solargen Limited Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम “Samanvay”, 600, Circle- 4(1)(2), Vs. Tapovan, Amabawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct0483G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Vartik Chokshi, Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr 27/08/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee (Tsl) Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 08.09.2022 For The Assessment Year 2016- 17. 2. There Was A Delay Of 95 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reason For Delay. It

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of AO for not granting interest u/s 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the original return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 was filed by the assessee

CHECKMATE FACILITY & ELECTRONIC SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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)

244A does not apply since the alleged interest on Refund in Income-tax is adjusted against the demand without permission/sanction/knowledge of the Appellant which is against Law and Equity and therefore the Addition of Rs.5,04,705/-be deleted.” 6. The assessee in the above ground has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made

AESHA ASHISHBHAI SHAH LEGAL HEIR AND WIFE OF LATE ASHISH SUMATIBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1) PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 143(3) on 19.02.2016 determining total income at Rs. 66,15,560/-. Additions were made on account of interest u/s 244A, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), disallowance of bad debts and addition u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee’s appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on 24.10.2017. The matter then travelled to the Tribunal. Vide order

SARITA R JADON,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DCIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE, GODHRA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without considering the written submission filed before his office. It is submitted that the order passed mentioning that nobody was present for appellant and that appellant does not wish to prosecute the appeal is absolutely incorrect. The appellant was duly represented by a firm of CAs and written submissions

SARITA R JADON,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DCIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE, GODHRA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without considering the written submission filed before his office. It is submitted that the order passed mentioning that nobody was present for appellant and that appellant does not wish to prosecute the appeal is absolutely incorrect. The appellant was duly represented by a firm of CAs and written submissions