INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

271(1)(c) of the Act. Having considered the record, we find that both the assessment order and the appellate order are reasoned and speak to the issues raised by the assessee. No specific instance has been pointed out to demonstrate any material submission having been overlooked. As regards Ground No. 4, it is well settled that initiation of penalty

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

271(1)(c) of the Act. Having considered the record, we find that both the assessment order and the appellate order are reasoned and speak to the issues raised by the assessee. No specific instance has been pointed out to demonstrate any material submission having been overlooked. As regards Ground No. 4, it is well settled that initiation of penalty

VIJAYBHAI DASHRATHBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us: -

section 271(1)(c), the Revenue has to establish that there was no reasonable cause for failure to furnish return of income by the assessee. In the instant set of facts, assessee during the year is in receipt of interest income on which the TDS

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

TDS (column 7 of Schedle-TDS2) 11b TAXES PAID c TCS (column 7 of schedule-TCS 11c d Self Assessment Tax (from Schedule-IT) 11d e Total Taxes Paid (10a+10b+10c+10d) 10e 11 Amount payable (Enter if 9 is greater than 10e, else enter 0) 11 12 Refund (If 10e is greater than 9, also

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NASCENT INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2828/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Ito M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. A-805, Sapath-Iv, Opp. Ahmedabad Karnavati Club, Ahmedabad- 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Cn3 670 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Mehul K. Patel, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

TDS in respect of security charges. 16.1 The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act states that the penalty

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had provided

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had provided

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had provided

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had provided

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had provided

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had provided

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had provided

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had provided

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had provided

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had provided

ARROW DIGITAL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1568/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Arrow Digital Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, 1005-06, 10Th Floor, Vs. Cirle-1(1)(1) Aditya Complex, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-38006. Pan: Aaeca2215J

TDS and deposits the same to the income tax Asstt. Year 2012-13 7 Department. In view of the above, we hold that the assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particular of income deliberately. Accordingly he cannot be visited with the penalty under section 271(1

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this fact

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this fact