INFOANALYTICA CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty u/s

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 270A (9) of the Act viz. (a) misrepresentation of suppression of facts and (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence. Further, we observe that the AO has disallowed the sum of Rs.68,277/- u/s.143(3) of the Act, on account of non-deduction of TDS

PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 270A Parulben Vijakumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– of the Act for misreporting of income and levied penalty @ 200% of the tax payable on such under reported income. 5. In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee with following observations:- “6.1. Carefully considered the submission of the appellant in view

SURESH RAO,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 270A(7) of the Act and the remaining penalty levied kindly be deleted accordingly. 5. The Order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now. 6. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend

ALTERA DIGITAL HEALTH (INDIA) LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) LLP),VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

TDS credit of INR 63,086 I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 5 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 14. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in incorrectly computing the deemed total income under section 115JC

LYSA TRADING LLP,AHMEDABAD,GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2022-23 Lysa Trading Llp Ito, Ward-1(2)(3) Corporate House-2, Shilp Vs Ahmedabad. Corporate Park Rajpath Rangoli Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaifl 3030 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 270A of the Act. It be so held now. 3. As is evident from the perusal of the grounds raised before us, the solitary issue in the present appeal relates to treating an amount of Rs.17,08,908/-as assessee’s income from house property as opposed to the assessee’s contention that they were merely recovery of common

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. THE ASSTT.CIT., CIRCLE(INTNL.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result,\nwe hold that the above services did not qualify as FTS under the\nIndia-Netherlands Tax Treaty, since the “make available” clause\nhas not been satisfied in the instant facts

TDS to the extent of INR 12,344 ignoring the\nprovisions of Section 199 of the Act read with Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules,\n1962.\n19. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in circumstances of the case on the\nfacts and in law in increasing the tax payable amount by considering

MUKESH CHHOTELAL GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Shri Mukesh Chhotelal Gupta The Dcit, Cir.(1)(1) Gupta Nivas Vs. Ahmedabad. Chandkheda Sabarmati Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Ablpg 9729 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ar : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

TDS had been effected; and that no proximate connection between the interest receipts and the interest payments had been demonstrated. 2.6 Proceeding on the above and noting that none of the interest payments were made during the year and were stated to have been made in subsequent years, the AO held that the assessee failed to satisfy the statutory requirement

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 10 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS) as INR 28,28,09,236 instead of INR 27,73,19,576. 22. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in circumstances of the cane on the facts and in law in increasing the tax payable amount by considering INR 10,27,665 as refund already issued when no such refund has been issued

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. MAHADEV SHIPBREAKERS PVT LTD., BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Assistant Commissioner Mahadev Shipbreakers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, Office No. 213/216, 2Nd Floor, Circle-1, Samved Complex, Opp. Jail Bhavnagar Road, Bhavnagar-364001 [Pan :Aaecm 8398 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

TDS, supported by ledgers, bank statements, and confirmation from group concern M/s Shiv Corporation. Despite no incriminating evidence found, the Assessing Officer reopened the case, ignored submissions and video conference requests, and made an addition of Rs.80.94 lakhs under Section 69A, taxing it under Section 115BBE and raising a demand of Rs.1.13 crores. The Assessing Officer also wrongly initiated penalty

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

270A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), vide order dated 28.11.2024, invoked the provisions of the newly inserted proviso to section 251(1)(a) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 and set aside the assessment order, restoring the matter to the file

BHIKHABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 270A of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. 2. Issues involved in both the appeals being interrelated they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset itself, Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that

BHIKHABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 270A of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. 2. Issues involved in both the appeals being interrelated they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset itself, Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that

JITENDRA PRAKASHCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270A(9) of the Act are also initiated herewith for misreporting the income 10. In view of the above, the total income of the assessee for the AY 2018-19 is hereby assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(38) of the I. T. Act, 1961, as below: Total income Income as per ROI Rs. 43,79,040/- Add: Disallowance

INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ADDIT.CIT , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS has been deducted on the income earned by the AEs on account of GHO and RHO services and requisite compliances have been done by the AEs in India. 12. That the AO / TPO / DRP has erred in law and on facts in ignoring Rule of consistency in view of the fact that no adjustment was made by the Learned

INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS has been deducted on the income earned by the AEs on account of GHO and RHO services and requisite compliances have been done by the AEs in India. 16. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / TPO / DRP has erred in ignoring Rule of consistency in view of the fact that

KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

270A of the Act. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. Kiri Industries Limited vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3– Disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. 3. The AO made the disallowance u/s.14A

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

section 92C(2) of the Act. 6. That the learned AO / TPO / DRP has erred in law and on facts in rejecting consistent benchmarking approach followed by the Appellant, rejecting functionally comparable companies and arbitrarily cherry-picking companies for the purpose of benchmarking the transaction of sale of goods to Zydus USA. 7. That the learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

270A of the Act. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 8. Though the assessee had taken other grounds of appeal also, however, the sole and common issue raised by both the parties