THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:-- ITA Nos. 1245 & 1246/Ahd/2019 (DCIT vs. Inox India Pvt. Ltd.) AY 2012-13 & 2016-17 - 14 - (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :-- "Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:-- ITA Nos. 1245 & 1246/Ahd/2019 (DCIT vs. Inox India Pvt. Ltd.) AY 2012-13 & 2016-17 - 14 - (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :-- "Section

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

TDS credit claimed Rs.2,400/- under Rs.2,400/- under section 194-IA section 194-IA 9 Refund granted or Denied – ITR filed Denied – ITR filed denied late late 3.5 Subsequently, the PCIT, examined the assessment record under section 263 of the Act and found that the assessment order dated 06.03.2023 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

TDS credit claimed Rs.2,400/- under Rs.2,400/- under section 194-IA section 194-IA 9 Refund granted or Denied – ITR filed Denied – ITR filed denied late late 3.5 Subsequently, the PCIT, examined the assessment record under section 263 of the Act and found that the assessment order dated 06.03.2023 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

HBC LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 328/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) िनधा"रण वष" Hbc Lifesciences Private Principal Commissioner बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Limited Of Income Tax-3 Vs. B-218, Mayur House, Ahmedabad G.I.D.C., Electronic Estate Sector-25, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382016 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch1407M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr 20/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Pcit’) Dated 25.03.2023 In Exercise Of The Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short], For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018-19 Was Filed By The Assessee On 30.10.2018 Declaring

263 of the Act dated 17.02.2023 that the business promotion expense claimed by the assessee was in the nature of freebies/monetary grant for promoting products and was required to be disallowed. Further that the AO had passed the assessment order without making proper enquiry and the required addition in respect of this claim. It is not apparent

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

TDS provisions, expenses incurred for earning exempt income, ICDS adjustments, and refund claims. Accordingly, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 29.06.2021 and 15.12.2021 respectively, and the assessee furnished its responses thereunder. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had earned exempt income amounting to Rs.8,28,12,464/- during

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS at Rs. 1,46,141/- and addition in respect of bad debt of Rs. 10,60,667/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). After giving effect to CIT(A) order total income was reduced to Rs. nil after setting off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,06,93,299/-. 3.3 The case of the assessee

SHREE HARI ENTERPRISE ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nfollowing terms:\n\ni) Issue No

TDS on professional payments and the valuation of closing stock, stating that the AO had already examined these issues.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "263", "143(3)", "142(1

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

TDS was done on these the same is disallowable. Further as till date the assessee group has not been able to discharge the onus of explaining the use of the funds that it got from the so called financing transactions, for the purpose of its business the interest expenses claimed to have been incurred on the said finance is disallowed

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

TDS was done on these the same is disallowable. Further as till date the assessee group has not been able to discharge the onus of explaining the use of the funds that it got from the so called financing transactions, for the purpose of its business the interest expenses claimed to have been incurred on the said finance is disallowed

COSMOS ENGITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarcosmos Engitech Private Ltd., The Assistant Vs. Plot No.85/2, Cosmos House, Commissioner Padra Road, Atladara, Of Income Tax, Vadodara-380015. Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara. [Pan :Aaacc7647 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

TDS of Rs.8,730/-. During the year the assessee had claimed sales promotion expenses of Rs.61,975/- and sales commission expenses of Rs.9,54,524/-. However, during the assessment proceedings the assessee had not furnished any details despite being specifically asked vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 08.10.2019, 07.11.2019 and 15.06.2019. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment

KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

263 of the Act to the assessee company to explain why the assessment order should not be revised. During the hearing, the assessee submitted that the interest paid on late TDS was compensatory and not penal in nature. The assessee contended that the interest, amounting to Rs. 13,56,539/-, should be allowable under Section 37(1

TEXRAJ REALTY PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16

TDS so deducted which was required to be withdrawn as you had not shown corresponding income in the A. Y. under consideration.” 3.2 Learned PCIT accordingly issued a notice under Section 263 of the Act to the assessee pointing out the above errors and giving the assessee an opportunity to show-cause as to why the order passed

AARVEE DENIMS & EXPORTS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.396/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd. The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 191, Shahwadi Ahmedabad-1 V/S. Narol–Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad – 382 405 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 6019 P (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

1) of the Act and Rs. 3,15,44,000/- under section 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on foreign commission. The gross total income was computed at Rs.12,04,36,098/-, against which the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs.12,04,36,098/- under section 80IA of the Act, resulting

TULSI REALITY,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.134/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulsi Reality The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ G5 Anand Deep Complex Vadodara – 390 007 V/S. Gotri Road (Gujarat) Gotri, Vadodara – 390 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafft 8908 B (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 12.12.2019. Tulsi Reality Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Asst. Year : 2017-18

TDS and not admissible expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. 2.1. Subsequently, the PCIT invoked the powers under Section 263

JOGESHBHAI RAMANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Jogeshbhai Ramanlal Patel The Pcit-3, C.A. Ashokkumar S. Gupta, C-411, Pratykash Kar 203/1, New Cloth Market, O/S. Bhavan, Ambawadi, Vs Raipur Gate, Raipur, Gujarat-380009 Ahmedagad-380002 [Pan No. : Aaxpp3232E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Respondent By : Shri A. P. Singh, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 06.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.12.2022

1. Ld. PCIT-3 has erred in law as well as on fact in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act. 2. Ld. PCIT-3 has erred in law as well as on fact in holding that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. Ld. PCIT

GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPN.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-1, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms.Madhumita Roy"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Pcit-I Corporation Ltd. Vadodra Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Race Course Circle, Baroda. Pan : Aabcg 4029 R "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Deputy Corporation Ltd. Commissioner Of Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Income Tax, Circle Race Course Circle, Baroda. 1(1)(1), Vadodra Pan : Aabcg 4029 R Baroda.

263 of the I T Act. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax-I , Baroda has erred in invoking and applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I T Act for the year under consideration, the assessment of which has already been finalized under section 143(3) of the I T Act. 3.0 The learned Commissioner

GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, , VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms.Madhumita Roy"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Pcit-I Corporation Ltd. Vadodra Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Race Course Circle, Baroda. Pan : Aabcg 4029 R "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Deputy Corporation Ltd. Commissioner Of Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Income Tax, Circle Race Course Circle, Baroda. 1(1)(1), Vadodra Pan : Aabcg 4029 R Baroda.

263 of the I T Act. 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax-I , Baroda has erred in invoking and applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I T Act for the year under consideration, the assessment of which has already been finalized under section 143(3) of the I T Act. 3.0 The learned Commissioner