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 ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1384/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

TDS 1,85,59,075 1,85,59,075 4,27,36,648 4,27,36,648 Less: Taxes paid after 12,40,50,606 12,40,50,606 regular assessment on 26/2/2010 ACIT vs. National Dairy Development Board Asst.Year – 2007-08 Refund due (8,13,13,958) (8,13,13,958) Add: Interest u/s 234B Payable as per this

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KANDLA PORT TRUST,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

TDS was Rs. 45,73,528 - Tax paid after original assessment was Rs. 1,70,00,320 - Assessee was entitled to refund of Rs. 2,16,73,848 (consisting of Rs. 1,71,00,320 and Rs. 45,73,528) which payment was made after 57 months - It claimed statutory interest for delayed refund

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

B. P. Srivastav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 08.10.2025 ORDER PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)»), ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Kolkata vide order dated 24.01.2025 passed for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

244A of the Act. 21. That the above grounds of objection are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. 22. That the appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” 3. The issues raised by the assessee

M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

244A of the Act. 21. That the above grounds of objection are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. 22. That the appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” 3. The issues raised by the assessee

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

B-/12 Vijay Wadi Niwas CHS Ltd. Lokmanya Tilak Road Mulund East, Mumbai PAN : AABCT 9577 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Atul Pandey, SR-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 19/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

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

M/S. JOY GLOBAL (UK) LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWS AS JOY MINING MACHINERY LIMITED),KOLKATTA vs. THE DCIT (INT. TAXN.)-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

244A of the Act. 8. That the amount of refund for AY 2014-15 adjusted against AY 2012-13 by the Ld AO is incorrect. 3. The assessee, M/s Joy Global (UK) Ltd. (Formerly Joy Mining Machinery Ltd. –JMML), is a non-resident UK company. The assessee company had entered into a consolidated contract dated 15.10.2009 for all the issues

A. MENARINI INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.22,38,818/- was also granted to the assessee. This resulted in under assessment of Rs.6,03,09,004/- and consequential taxes/interest. (2) The scrutiny of records revealed that while finalizing the scrutiny assessment, the AO disallowed the expenditure of non achievement of targets amounting to Rs.22,74,380/- as the same were disallowed during the scrutiny assessment

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

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

B” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2015-16 Parimal Chandrakant The Pr. Zaveri Commissioner of 5/9A, Dreamland Vs Income Tax-1, Building, Vadodara New Queen Road, Opera House, (Respondent) Mumbai 400004 Maharashtra PAN: AACPZ2367D (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.R. Respondent by : Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR Date

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

B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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

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