M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

INCOME TAX OFFICERS (TDS),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2266/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

1 as under:- “... we wish to say a few words about the well-known principle that subsequent changes in the period of limitation do not take away an immunity -which has been reached under the law as it was previously. In this sense statutes of limitation have been picturesquely described as 'statutes of repose'. We were referred to many cases

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

1 ITA No. 447/Ahd/2023 : AY 2010-11 – By Assessee – Ground No. 3 2. At the outset, both the parties brought to our notice that the issue stands covered by the decision of ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 329/Ahd/2017 for AY 2011-12 vide order dated 16.11.2022 and also in 328/Ahd/2017

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

1 ITA No. 447/Ahd/2023 : AY 2010-11 – By Assessee – Ground No. 3 2. At the outset, both the parties brought to our notice that the issue stands covered by the decision of ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 329/Ahd/2017 for AY 2011-12 vide order dated 16.11.2022 and also in 328/Ahd/2017

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

1 ITA No. 447/Ahd/2023 : AY 2010-11 – By Assessee – Ground No. 3 2. At the outset, both the parties brought to our notice that the issue stands covered by the decision of ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 329/Ahd/2017 for AY 2011-12 vide order dated 16.11.2022 and also in 328/Ahd/2017

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

1 ITA No. 447/Ahd/2023 : AY 2010-11 – By Assessee – Ground No. 3 2. At the outset, both the parties brought to our notice that the issue stands covered by the decision of ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 329/Ahd/2017 for AY 2011-12 vide order dated 16.11.2022 and also in 328/Ahd/2017

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

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 as the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. The AO did not allow

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

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 as the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. The AO did not allow

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

275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received by the Appellant on 29 June 2022 Despite this fact being highlighted in the submission made by the Appellant, the learned AO has not provided any rationale for passing order on 29 June 2022. 2.2. Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in passing an arbitrary

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

275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received by the Appellant on 29 June 2022 Despite this fact being highlighted in the submission made by the Appellant, the learned AO has not provided any rationale for passing order on 29 June 2022. 2.2. Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in passing an arbitrary

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

275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received by the Appellant on 29 June 2022 Despite this fact being highlighted in the submission made by the Appellant, the learned AO has not provided any rationale for passing order on 29 June 2022. 2.2. Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in passing an arbitrary

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

275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received by the Appellant on 29 June 2022 Despite this fact being highlighted in the submission made by the Appellant, the learned AO has not provided any rationale for passing order on 29 June 2022. 2.2. Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in passing an arbitrary

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

275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received by the Appellant on 29 June 2022 Despite this fact being highlighted in the submission made by the Appellant, the learned AO has not provided any rationale for passing order on 29 June 2022. 2.2. Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in passing an arbitrary

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that