SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

249/- to the international transaction entered by the assessee with its AE, HLPL and SIMPL. The upward adjustment proposed by the TPO are tabulated in his order as under: ITA No.2390/Ahd/2018 & 1783/Ahd/2019 with CO 6 10. The assessee objected to the proposed upward adjustment to the DRP, who noted that this issue was under consideration before the DRP consistently

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

249/- to the international transaction entered by the assessee with its AE, HLPL and SIMPL. The upward adjustment proposed by the TPO are tabulated in his order as under: ITA No.2390/Ahd/2018 & 1783/Ahd/2019 with CO 6 10. The assessee objected to the proposed upward adjustment to the DRP, who noted that this issue was under consideration before the DRP consistently

LAXMANJI KHODAJI SOLANKI (THAKOR),GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

249(4)\nof the Act ignoring fact that appellant has no taxable income\nand accordingly not liable for filing return of income.\n\n6. Ld. NFAC failed to pass order as per the provision of section\n250(6) of the Act and appellant prays that same may be set\naside to the file of CIT (A) / NFAC for readjudication

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 249(4) (a) of the Act and, thus, dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2010-11 3. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the self-assessment tax has been paid. In this regard he drew out attention

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(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.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(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.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

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.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(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.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

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.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS 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.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

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.

249, requirements of Schedule VI as well as the provisions of AS-13 on investment. The assessee has maintained only one portfolio. It is further pleaded that during the year there was speculative loss of Rs.0.67 lakhs and Rs.1.08 lakhs for the Asstt.year 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively. Such small amount involving only six transactions should not be determining

SALIM VALIMOHAMAND MEMAN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble

TDS Circle Ahmedabad. 4, Sahajanad Society Vs Danilimda Ahmedabad. PAN : ACBPM 7325 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Varis V. Isani, AR Revenue by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15/07/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 26/07/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee

SHANKARBHAI VIRABHAI PATEL,DAHOD vs. ITO WARD-1, DAHOD

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

TDS had also been\ndeducted, the assessee failed to provide any supporting documentation such\nas work details, expenditure incurred, or material purchases to substantiate\nthe contract income received by him. Further, the Assessing Officer noted\nthat the assessee had invested a sum of ₹1.42 crore in two fixed deposits and\nreceived ₹17 lakh as maturity proceeds, yet the assessee provided

SHANKARBHAI VIRABHAI PATEL,DAHOD vs. ITO WARD-1, DAHOD

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

TDS had also been\ndeducted, the assessee failed to provide any supporting documentation such\nas work details, expenditure incurred, or material purchases to substantiate\nthe contract income received by him. Further, the Assessing Officer noted\nthat the assessee had invested a sum of ₹1.42 crore in two fixed deposits and\nreceived ₹17 lakh as maturity proceeds, yet the assessee provided

SUMAN NANDLAL RAVAL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD 1, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

4– “…In the present case, the delay in filing of the appeal is almost four years which is an inordinate and huge delay. Moreover, as has been elaborately discussed above, the appellant has also failed to provide any reasonable ground that could assist the first appellate authority to draw sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 1,396 days

SUMAN NANDLAL RAVAL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD 1, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

4– “…In the present case, the delay in filing of the appeal is almost four years which is an inordinate and huge delay. Moreover, as has been elaborately discussed above, the appellant has also failed to provide any reasonable ground that could assist the first appellate authority to draw sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 1,396 days

DEEP MULTIPLEX PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) (1), BARODA

In the results, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1719/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Deep Muliplex P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.1(1)(4) 9, Arunoday Society Baroda. Vs 2, Mangaljyot Apartment Alkapuri Baroda Pan : Aabck 4719 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

4 During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NASCENT INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2828/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Ito M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. A-805, Sapath-Iv, Opp. Ahmedabad Karnavati Club, Ahmedabad- 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Cn3 670 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Mehul K. Patel, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

4. The AO subsequently issued a notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide dated 23-03-2015 for levying the penalty on account of furnishing inaccurate particular of income. 5. The assessee in compliance to the notice submitted that it had claimed depreciation on the lease datacentre after having a reliance on the judgment