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 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

section 2(o) of the Copyright Act,1957. The AO also referred the agreement entered into by Mycom with the assessee and reproduced the releant clauses of the agreement. The DCIT (Intl.Taxn.)-1 vs. Vodafone West Ltd. Asst. Year : 2013-14 7 2.14. The AO also placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case

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

264, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Interest, etc., paid to a resident without deduction of tax at source (Deposit of tax) - Whether in view of amended provision of section 40(a)(ia), assessee who had deposited TDS

M/S. SHARDABEN EDUCATION TRUST,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2312/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 M/S. Shardaben Education Trust, Income Tax Officer, Set, Opp. Kailash Dham, Vs. (Exemption) Pethapur, Ward-1, Gandhinagar-382610. Ahmedabad.

264 of the Act made on 29- 3-2004, cannot be sustained. 20. A word of caution. The authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is over-assessed, the authorities

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

264/-. The ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 13. Ground Number- 12 & 13: Disallowance u/s 14A 13.1 Ground No.12 pertains to restriction of addition of Rs.72,74,923/- made under Section 14A of the Act to Rs.5,208/- only by the Ld. CIT(A). It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance under Section

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

264/-. The ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 13. Ground Number- 12 & 13: Disallowance u/s 14A 13.1 Ground No.12 pertains to restriction of addition of Rs.72,74,923/- made under Section 14A of the Act to Rs.5,208/- only by the Ld. CIT(A). It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance under Section

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 143(3) of the Act. 16.9 On perusal of the ledgers of the laborers we note that the payment was made by the assessee periodically after the deduction of TDS. Thus, the assessee cannot be penalized if the laborers have raised the bills at the end of the accounting year. 16.10 We also note that the assessee has shown

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 143(3) of the Act. 16.9 On perusal of the ledgers of the laborers we note that the payment was made by the assessee periodically after the deduction of TDS. Thus, the assessee cannot be penalized if the laborers have raised the bills at the end of the accounting year. 16.10 We also note that the assessee has shown

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

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

264 2016-17 1,81,99,048 2,00,96,792 2017-18 4,61,09,275 3,93,81,546 2018-19 4,46,29,473 4,75,71,939 2019-20 1,92,54,656 1,53,81,860 Grand Total 13,36,89,277 12,48,87,401 8.1. The AO treated the entire unaccounted cash receipts

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

264 2016-17 1,81,99,048 2,00,96,792 2017-18 4,61,09,275 3,93,81,546 2018-19 4,46,29,473 4,75,71,939 2019-20 1,92,54,656 1,53,81,860 Grand Total 13,36,89,277 12,48,87,401 8.1. The AO treated the entire unaccounted cash receipts

SHRI SANDEEP JAGDISHCHANDRA DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. TEH PR. CIT -3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

264/- under this scheme. However, the assessee did not disclose the corresponding receipts in his Profit & Loss Account for the relevant period for income tax purposes. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not obtain the relevant details and did not verify the issue Sandip Jagdishchandra Dave vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 4– appropriately. Fifthly

SANDEEPKUMAR MITHULAL MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1002/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sandeepkumar Mithulal Mehta, I.T.O., 7, Rajasthan Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Opp. Meghdoot Petrol Pump, Ahmedabad. Sahibaug, Ahmedabad.

264 ITR 186 held as under : ". . .what is really indicated in the various decisions cited and in section 5 of the Limitation Act itself, is that a litigant would be required to explain why the appeal and/or application could not be filed within the period prescribed by limitation and explain the delay for such period for the purpose of linking

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. AARTI CATALYST SOLUTION PVT. LTD, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS to incur the expenditure of Rs.87,54,000/- cannot be overlooked. It is also a fact that the amount paid is more than what is required to be on the safer side of law. So this overwhelming evidence cannot be overlooked. No rational person will pay more than 20% tax to incur bogus expenditure. Although circumstantial evidences

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS) from Chhatisgarh 33,23,630 Surguja Power Ltd. on deposits with them TOTAL 33,23,630 From the above, it can be seen that the Company was mandatorily required to place a Deposit with M/s. Chhattisgarh Surguja Power Ltd. towards Gujarat’s share of power in Chhattisgarh Ultra Mega Power Project. Hence, interest on the same has been earned

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

264 of 2013 wherein search and seizure action was carried out at the premises of the assessee and assessment was completed u/s. 158BE of the Act determining total income at Rs. 1,93,94,403/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) thought it fit to hold an inquiry

THE ITO, WARD-2(4),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

264 of 2013 wherein search and seizure action was carried out at the premises of the assessee and assessment was completed u/s. 158BE of the Act determining total income at Rs. 1,93,94,403/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) thought it fit to hold an inquiry

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4),, VADODARA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA,, VADODARA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

264 of 2013 wherein search and seizure action was carried out at the premises of the assessee and assessment was completed u/s. 158BE of the Act determining total income at Rs. 1,93,94,403/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) thought it fit to hold an inquiry