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

Section 57 of the Act against the interest income of Rs. 52,893/- earned during the year under consideration. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had submitted complete details of money borrowed and utilized for the purpose of business in the form of a detailed chart showing names and addresses of parties including PAN, amount borrowed, interest

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

section 57 had been examined and accepted. The assessee also sought a video-conference hearing, which, as recorded in the assessment order, was held on 21.09.2021. 2.5 The AO, however, was not satisfied. He recorded that there was no material to show how interest to the tune of Rs.66,59,593/- claimed in the name of Shri Alpesh B. Patel

SHREE HARI ENTERPRISE ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nfollowing terms:\n\ni) Issue No

section 194-I was deducted only on payment of Rs.6,00,000/-.\n\n9. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated the issue to have been adjudicated during the assessment proceedings. In this regard, he drew our attention to the reply filed to the ld.Pr.CIT placed before us\n\nat PB Page No.598 and 599, the contents of which are reproduced

DEEPAK M. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Deepak M. Patel The Pr.Cit-I Shreekunj Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Shaswat Bungalows Suryala Nr. Lakshya Pre School Rajpath Club Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380059. Pan : Abbpp 3027 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2025

section 57(iii) of the Act. The Ld.PCIT records no error in the order with regards to eligibility of claim of interest expenses u/s 57(iii) of the Act. 7. Moreover, even from the standpoint of genuineness, considering the facts noted by him, we find there is no error found by the Ld.PCIT . He notes the assessee to have deducted

OM YASH PROJECTS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.40/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2023-24 Om Yash Projects Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Office No. 1113, Aaron Spectra, बनाम/ Ward-3(1)(1), V/S. Rajpath Rangoli Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aacco4734C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kaushik Kejriwal & Ms. Kushboo Shah, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Additional / Joint From The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Dated 26.11.2024, In Connection With The Intimation Under Section 143(1) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2023-24, Issued By The Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bangalore, Dated 09.01.2024. Om Yash Projects Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2023-24

section 143(1), proportionately restricted the TDS credit based on turnover as per books, thereby creating a tax demand of Rs. 21,23,920/- instead of Om Yash Projects Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2023-24 7 granting the refund claimed by the assessee. Upon reviewing the data, we observe that while the assessee claims the entire difference arises

DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

57 of the Act. The AO also noted that Form 15G/15H, which could have exempted the assessee from TDS deduction, had not been furnished. Further, since no TDS had been deducted on these ITA Nos.353 & 354/Ahd/2022 Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama vs. DCIT Asst. Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 payments as required under Section

DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

57 of the Act. The AO also noted that Form 15G/15H, which could have exempted the assessee from TDS deduction, had not been furnished. Further, since no TDS had been deducted on these ITA Nos.353 & 354/Ahd/2022 Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama vs. DCIT Asst. Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 payments as required under Section

THE DCIT (INT.TAXA.), VADODARA vs. SHRI AJOY KANAIYALAL KHANDHERIA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Ward-3 V/S. Mandir Gandhinagar Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

section 10(37) of the Act on account of compensation received for the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land situated at Survey Nos. 56/1 and 56/2, Dholakuva, Gandhinagar. The brief facts relating to land and its dispute are summarized below form the order of AO – 2.1. Shri Abhraji Ataji Thakor, Shri Baldevji Ataji Thakor, and Shri Ambaji Ataji Thakor (Thakor Brothers

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

57,74,100/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. Alternatively and without prejudice. the disallowance of foreign commission shall be restricted to 30% of the expenditure as per Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming disallowance of interest expense

SUZLON GUJARAT WIND PARK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above\nterms

TDS credit of ₹1,11,297/- was allowed by the\nDepartment, and refund was accordingly issued vide rectification order\nunder section 154 dated 22.07.2020. The refund and interest granted under\nsection 244A totalled to ₹11,81,47,067/-, comprising refund of\n₹10,93,89,770/- and interest of ₹87,57

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2014-15 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd. Ahmedabad. ‘Apollo House’ Rashmi Society Nr.Mithakhali Six Roads Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacg 7248 P

TDS as per section 195(6) of the Act relating to various parties. One among this is Mr.Binod Shah, Form No.15CB clearly mentioned that he belongs to Nepal and he was paid commission 72,1000/- on 5.6.2013 and also Rs.2,41,966/- on the very same day. However, these copies of the chart, Form no.15CB and form no.CA were

RANJITSINH NARSINH VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.451/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13\nRanjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela\n3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali\nMandir\nPethapur, Gandhinagar\nGandhinagar – 382 610\nबनाम /\nv/s.\nThe Income Tax Officer\nWard-3\nGandhinagar\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AFEPV 3269 D\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Hardik Vora, Advocate\nRevenue by :\nShri R.N. Dso

Section 10(37) of the Act on account of\ncompensation received for the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land\nsituated at Survey Nos.56/1 and 56/2, Dholakuva, Gandhinagar.\nThe brief facts relating to land and its dispute are summarized below form\nthe order of AO\n2. 1. Shri Abhraji Ataji Thakor, Shri Baldevji Ataji Thakor, and Shri Ambaji\nAtaji Thakor (Thakor Brothers

TESTEC ASIA LIMITED,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.44/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Testec Asia Limited The Dy.Director Of Income Tax बनाम/ United Arab Emirates Circle, International Taxation V/S. P.O. Box No.16799, Dubai, Vadodara- 390 007 United Arab Emirates – 999999 (Or) Villa 11, Street 5, Medows 1, Emirates Hill, United Arab Emirates – Not Listed 999999 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aajct 4035 A (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Virat Bhavsar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 205 of the Act. 8. Your Appellant reserves the right to add to or to alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. Testec Asia Ltd. Vs. DIT (Intnl.Taxn.) Asst. Year : 2022-23 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee explained the facts

ITO, WARD - 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE GAYATRI COTTEX ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

57,73,285/- made by AO on account of bogus purchase despite the fact that: (i) the vendors failed to respond to Section 133(6) notices during the assessment proceedings. (ii) the assessee failed to produce primary evidence, such as invoices, delivery challans, and payment proofs, to establish the genuineness of the purchases. (iii) Mere furnishing of ledger confirmations

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

57,242/- Total 4,85,58,403/- 7. On receipt of aforesaid Order from Ld. TPO, the Ld. AO passed assessment-order in conformity with the same and made an addition of Rs. 4,85,58,403/-, as proposed by Ld. TPO, to the taxable income of assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried matter to Ld. CIT(A). 8. Before

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

57,242/- Total 4,85,58,403/- 7. On receipt of aforesaid Order from Ld. TPO, the Ld. AO passed assessment-order in conformity with the same and made an addition of Rs. 4,85,58,403/-, as proposed by Ld. TPO, to the taxable income of assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried matter to Ld. CIT(A). 8. Before

KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

57,74,100/- concerning commission paid to non-residents and a sum of Rs. 35,18,785/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 4. Subsequently, upon reviewing the records, Principal CIT noted that the Auditors of Kiri Industries i.e. the assessee had certified that an interest amount of Rs. 13,56,539/- had been paid by the assessee

PIRAMAL FINANCE PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

57,968/- was deducted. In the return of income, the assessee had claimed credit for TDS of Rs.1,34,14,940/- only and the credit for balance TDS of Rs.1,40,028/- was not claimed and carried forward in the return and corresponding income of Rs.14,00,285/- was also not booked. A copy of the ledger account on Urbanize