THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

245 international transactions Out of the total transactions, he made adjustments. After receiving the order of the TPO, the AO issued a draft order to the assessee. It filed objections before the DRP for each transaction. The DRP deleted the addition in respect of one transaction. However, adjustment made by the TPO for the remaining six transactions were upheld. First

THE DY.DIT, (INTL. TAXN.)- 1,, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2398/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit (International Vodafone West Ltd. बनाम/ Taxation)-1 Vodafone House Ahmedabad Corporate Road V/S. Prahladnagar Off S.G. Highway Ahmedabad-380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacf 1190 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-Gandhinagar (Ahmedabad) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 02/06/2014, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Dy.Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad (Ao) Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) The Dcit (Intl.Taxn.)-1 Vs. Vodafone West Ltd. Asst. Year : 2013-14

TDS under section 195 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Income Tax [2011] 245

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

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 271(1)c of the IT Act. The Appellant craves leave to add/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above and/or produce further documents before or at the time

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

245 (Gujarat). “Section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Voluntary retirement payments (Illustration) - Assessee, an employee of a bank, opted for scheme of early voluntary retirement as declared by bank and received a sum of certain amount - He filed his return of income without claiming benefit of exemption under section 10(10C) on said amount - Same was processed

AKSHATAM CONSTRUCTION LLP,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1559/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Akshatam Construction Llp, D.C.I.T., 302, Silver Coin, Vs. Circle-1(2), Shrenik Park Char Rasta, Vadodara. Nr. Akota Statdium, Vadodara-390020. Pan: Aaxfa6302N

section 194C of the Act. But the assessee has not deducted the TDS on such expenses. Therefore the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 14. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A who confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: 7.1 I have considered the written submission

UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

TDS of Rs.13,11,100/- and interest under section 234B of Rs.1,01,36,645/- were also disputed by the assessee. Claim for deduction of education cess of Rs.12,63,048/- under section 37(1) was also made by the assessee, relying on judicial precedents. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. In so doing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL

Accordingly dismissed.\n18.9 Based on the findings and conclusions set out hereinabove, the\nappeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by\nthe assessee is partly allowed

245/-\nii. Testing fees of Rs.50,29,391/-\niii. Consultancy charges of Rs.2,18,58,050/-\niv. Foreign exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.3,17,88,107/-\nV. Interest expenditure of Rs.1,76,03,597/-\n4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)\nwhere short grant of TDS of Rs.13,11,100/- and interest under section

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

Appeal is allowed

section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) in the present case. The suo\nmotu disallowance of Rs. 1,60,838/- offered by the assessee in respect of\nadministrative expenditure is reasonable. We accordingly direct deletion of\nthe disallowance of Rs. 11,97,333/- sustained by the CIT(A). These grounds\nof appeal are allowed.\n6.5 Issue No. 5 – Addition

BHIKHABHAI HIRABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 04 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

245/- was imposed for the FY 2013-14 concerning AY 2014-15. 3. It is the case of the assessee that section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is machinery provision providing mechanism for processing a statement of deduction of tax at source and for making adjustments which are arithmetical or prima facie

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

245 (Delhi)] ITA No.1379 and 1380/Ahd/2009 and 13 Others Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. Vs. ACIT Section 28(i), read with section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business income - chargeable as (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee declared income arising from sale of shares as short-term capital gain - Assessee had opening investment of Rs.1 crore in shares - During

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

245 (Delhi)] ITA No.1379 and 1380/Ahd/2009 and 13 Others Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. Vs. ACIT Section 28(i), read with section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business income - chargeable as (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee declared income arising from sale of shares as short-term capital gain - Assessee had opening investment of Rs.1 crore in shares - During

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

245 (Delhi)] ITA No.1379 and 1380/Ahd/2009 and 13 Others Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. Vs. ACIT Section 28(i), read with section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business income - chargeable as (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee declared income arising from sale of shares as short-term capital gain - Assessee had opening investment of Rs.1 crore in shares - During