GELOT AGRI EXPORTS,DEESA vs. ITO WD 1 PALANPUR, BANASKANTHA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

TDS, and therefore, applying provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30% of the said amount of Rs.15.09 crores,i.e Rs.4,52,85,292/-, was added to the income of the assessee. The AO initiated penalty proceedings for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting ,under section 270A(1

ISHIT KAMLESHBHAI SHETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS had\nalready been deducted. However, not satisfied with the explanation,\nthe AO proceeded to levy penalty under section 270A(2)(b) by treating\nthe income returned as “under-reported income” solely on the ground\nthat no return was filed within the time prescribed under section\n139(1

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

1), New Delhi vide W.P(C) 1646/2022 dated 31.05.2024 has made the following observations: Infoanalytica Consuling Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 6– 31. We are further constrained to observe that even the assessment orders fail to base the direction for initiation of proceedings under Section 270A on any considered finding of the conduct of the petitioner being liable

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

1. The order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s. 270A of the Act is bad in law and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the same. It is submitted that it be so held now and the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s. 270A of the Act as upheld by the Learned Commissioner

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

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

1,65,120 ignoring the provisions of Section 199 of the Act read with Rule 17BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 21. The learned AO has erred on facts and in law, by considering arithmetical incorrect aggregate income tax liability (before credit of TDS) as INR 28,28,09,236 instead

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

1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act of Rs 12.75.924/- on the ground that the Appellant has misreported his income for the year it is submitted that the Appellant has neither underreported nor misreported his income and thus invoking of provisions u/s 270A

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

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

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

1) read with Tax Accounting Standard-1 (matching concept). It was further asserted that substantial loans and advances were old and that in an earlier scrutiny for A.Y. 2016-17 a similar claim under section 57 had been examined and accepted. The assessee also sought a video-conference hearing, which, as recorded in the assessment order, was held

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of Rules and thus determining the Arms Length Price ('ALP') of intra-group services as 'Nil'. Thus, the order of the Learned TPO / AO / DRP is bad in law and liable to quashed. 10. That the learned AO / TPO / DRP has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO / TPO in ignoring the fact

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)

1,35,00,000 as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income and consequentially, erred in computing the total assessed income after deductions as INR 75,44,66,910 (instead of INR 74,09,66,913) in the computation sheet The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to kindly grant the requisite deduction under section 10AA

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

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

1. The learned AO as well as CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in treating the amount of Rs.17,08,908 being recovery towards Common Area maintenance Charges as rental income and taxing the same under the head income from house property. 2. The learned AO as well as CIT(A) erred in facts

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)

TDS and TCS of Rs 9,02,68,127/- in the tax computation even though duly granted under an intimation processed u/s 143(1) by the CPC. 12. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in not allowing credit for relief claimed u/s 90 of Rs. 37,46,819/-. 13. That the learned Assessing Officer erred

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

1) of Rules and thus determining the Arm’s Length Price (‘ALP’) of intra-group services as ‘Nil’. Thus, the order of the Learned TPO / AO / DRP is bad in law and liable to quashed. ITA No. 330/Ahd/2022 & S.P. No. 21/Ahd/2022(in ITA No. 330/A/22) INEOS Styrolution India Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 14. On the facts and circumstances

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-:-

1. Whether on facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.80,94,875/- u/s 69A of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact 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

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