PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

section 68 of the Act [page nos. 10- 59 of the Paper Book], whereas the AO has not established as to how Assessee's unaccounted money was routed back as unsecured loans. The statement of Mr. Jignesh Shah relied upon by Ld AO is a general statement and he has nowhere stated that accommodation entries were provided to the assessee

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 claim in the revised return, interest under Section 244A(1)(a)(ii) would apply from the date of furnishing the revised return. The 'date of grant' of refund for interest calculation purposes was determined as the date of issue of the demand draft.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "244A(1)(a)(i)", "244A

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS under the provisions of section 194(I) of the Act on the amount of lease premium and therefore the same cannot be allowed as deduction under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 10. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before us: 11. The learned AR before

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,,WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KANAK CASTOR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedasst.Year : 2008-09

section 131(1)/133(6) of the Act. 9.7 The 2nd allegation of the AO was that the assessee has not furnished the details of the TDS. However on perusal of the paper book filed by the assessee, particularly pages 693 to 724, we note that the assessee has furnished details of TDS deducted and the copies of the TDS

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI. SURESHCHANDRA SHANTILAL BRAHMBHATT, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad, Brahmbhatt, Room No. 220, V. 4 Shreenath Bangalow Part-2 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Matrushree Party Plot, Near Sachin Tower, Vejalpur, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-380005 Ahmedabad-380051, Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Actpb8904H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Ar & Sh. Parimalsinh Parmar, Ar Revenue By: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2024

TDS deduction details. The AO observed that the unsecured loans in the balance sheet of the assessee are not genuine, and the AO issued show cause notice to the assessee show-causing as to why the unsecured loans to the tune of Rs. 3,11,57,030/- received by the assessee should not be added to the income

AMBIS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Ambis Technologies P Ltd The Ito, C/O.Divyang J. Shah Vs Ward-1(1)(1) 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex Ahmedabad. Nr.Regenta Central Antarim Hotel Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aalca 0742 K (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Ms.Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 251(1)(a) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 and set aside the assessment order, restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in accordance with law. The CIT(A) observed that the issues raised by the assessee required extensive factual verification which could not be conducted at the level of appellate proceedings

SHRI RUSHABHDEV SWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK JAIN SANGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar&Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS details of the trust were duly reflected in the audited financial statements and the return filed under the valid PAN i.e. AAATR5288B. 7. The learned CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. In his report, the AO reiterated that no return had been filed in response to the notice under section 148 and that

TORRENT ENERGY LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH TORRENT POWER LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Torrent Energy Limited The Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) (Now Merged With Torrent Power Ltd) Ahmedabad. Samanvay, 600, Tapovan Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Pan : Aacct 8570 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the Assessment Year 2011–12, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Office (NFAC)”], vide assessment order dated 13.09.2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section

PREMILABEN HASMUKHBHAI PATEL,UNJHA vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2022-23 Premilaben Hasmukhbhai Patel Dcit, Cpc Prp. Pramukh Enterprise Vs Bangalore At Present: 21, Ambica Society Ito, Ward-1, Patan. Opp: Umiya Mata Mandir Unjha 384 170 Pan : Cpdpp 4066 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri P.F. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

TDS under section 194Q of the Act on the actual sale amount. After accounting for expenses and other business transactions, the appellant declared a net profit of Rs.5,49,251

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

251(1)(a) has held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred on facts and in law in not directing the Assessing Officer to rectify order passed u/s 154 in view of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court holding

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

TDS has been deducted on such interest payment. So far as provisions of Section 68 of the Act are concerned, appellant has submitted confirmation of depositors along with their return of income which proves the identity of depositors. The appellant had provided bank statements of such depositors and claimed that prior to giving loan to appellant, no cash deposit

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

TDS has been deducted on such interest payment. So far as provisions of Section 68 of the Act are concerned, appellant has submitted confirmation of depositors along with their return of income which proves the identity of depositors. The appellant had provided bank statements of such depositors and claimed that prior to giving loan to appellant, no cash deposit

CRYSTAL CERAMICS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

TDS has been deducted on such interest payment. So far as provisions of Section 68 of the Act are concerned, appellant has submitted confirmation of depositors along with their return of income which proves the identity of depositors. The appellant had provided bank statements of such depositors and claimed that prior to giving loan to appellant, no cash deposit

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

251 (Guj)] and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [(2013) 31 taxmann.com 300 (Guj)]. 23. In the said decision in assessee’s own case, the Co-ordinate Bench has extensively examined the scope of DSIR’s authority, the applicability of Rule 6(7A), and the evidentiary value of Form 3CL. It has been held that the Form 3CL merely reflects intimation of cost

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

251 (Guj)] and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [(2013) 31 taxmann.com 300 (Guj)]. 23. In the said decision in assessee’s own case, the Co-ordinate Bench has extensively examined the scope of DSIR’s authority, the applicability of Rule 6(7A), and the evidentiary value of Form 3CL. It has been held that the Form 3CL merely reflects intimation of cost

JAYESHKUMAR TULSIDAS SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

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

251 are wide and Include the authority to entertain and allow a fresh legal claim. in contrast, the PCIT acting under section 119(2)(b) cannot adjudicate or grant exemption u/s 10(108). The impugned direction amounts to abdication of duty, rendering the order bad in law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant received

JAYESHKUMAR TULSIDAS SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

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

251 are wide and Include the authority to entertain and allow a fresh legal claim. in contrast, the PCIT acting under section 119(2)(b) cannot adjudicate or grant exemption u/s 10(108). The impugned direction amounts to abdication of duty, rendering the order bad in law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant received

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

TDS credit of Rs. 42,830/- while calculating demand of Rs. 2,32,474/-. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the learned AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case