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

2) of section 270A of the Act or of misreporting of income under sub-section (9) of Section 270A of the Act. He pointed out that in the present case the addition/disallowance was made in terms of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of expenses claimed by the assessee without deducting TDS

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

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

2) r.w.s. 270A(9) of the income come Tax Act, 1961 on the under reported income of Rs.3,04,116/-on the basis of the merit in the case of the assessee 11. Accordingly, from the contents of the notice for initiating penalty proceedings as well as appellate order u/s.270A of the Act, the AO has no clarity under which

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

2) of Section 270A, then the benefit of sub-Section (6) to Section 270A is also not available to the assessee. Therefore, the next issue for consideration is whether the assessee’s case is one of misreporting of income and whether the case of assessee falls specifically under sub-Section (a) to Section 9 dealing with “misrepresentation or suppression

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

TDS of Rs 3,75,600/- towards total tax liability and thus there is neither revenue loss to that extent nor question of underreporting of income or misreporting of income to that extent. In view of this, the maximum penalty be levied only on difference amount of Rs 2,62,362/- and not at all on entire tax liability

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)

2,64,380 computed under section 234A of the Act. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in computing an interest of INR 23,048 under section 234C of the Act. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to delete the interest of INR 23,048 computed under section

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

2) was served on 23.09.2019 and notices under section 142(1) were thereafter issued calling for details on the limited scrutiny issue. 2.2 As recorded by the AO, a perusal of Form 26AS revealed interest credited of Rs.14,65,941/- on which tax was deducted under section 194A. The assessee’s computation under the head “Income from other sources” disclosed

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

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

2. The learned AO as well as CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in taxing the amount of Rs.17,08,908 towards Common Area Maintenance charges despite the fact that such recovery is not in nature of income and not liable to tax under provisions of the Act. It be so held now. 3. The learned

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

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

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

2,50,72,914 received SIMPL and BGEPIL for Brand advertising services as FTS under Article 12 of India- Netherlands DTAA. Shell International B.V. vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Asst.Year –2020-21 - 3– 12. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law and learned DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the learned

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-:-

2– Act, declaring income of Rs.90.84 lakhs and turnover of Rs.60 crores. A notice under Section 148A(b) was issued based on a search at Kasturi Commodities Pvt. Ltd., alleging the assessee received accommodation entries of Rs.80.94 lakhs. The assessee clarified that it had only granted a genuine loan of Rs.80 lakhs to KCPL, repaid through banking channels with interest

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

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

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

2,99,09,430/- [6% of\nRs. 49,84,90,503/-]\n4. Alternatively, and without prejudice, the estimation of profit at the rate\nof 6% is highly excessive and does not reflect the real income earned of\nthe appellant.\n5. Both the lower authorities have erred in not granting set off of the profit\nalready declared in the return

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

2– LEAVE CRAVED The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the grounds or ground of appeal either before or at the time of appeal hearing. RELIEF CLAIMED The appellant respectfully urges that by allowing ground no.1 so being raised by the appellant, the impugned order may kindly be quashed or set aside, and by allowing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. That the DRP has erred in directing the NFAC/AO/TPO to consider and verify the contentions of the appellant thereby violating the mandatory provisions of section 144C(8) of the Act. Thus, the Final Assessment order and DRP directions deserve to be set aside and quashed. 3. That the learned AO has erred in not incorporating the directions issued