DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

80G(5)(vi) of the Act by and under the order dated 25.04.2006 issued under the signature of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) being Memo No.DIT(E)/80G/42/W.2/2006-07. The assessee Trust is also registered under Section 35AC of the Act by and under the notification dated 23.10.2007. 4. On 22.09.2011 the assessee filed its return of income

HESTER BIOSCIENCE LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act amounting to ₹1,75,61,505/- and this included the interest amount of Rs. 98,791/-, which is in question. Regarding the deduction under section 80G of the Act, the assessee submitted that that the restriction under section Hester Biosciences Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst. Year –2020-21 - 3– 115BAA(2), which

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

80G and 80GGB of the Act for the donations made by the undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. The deduction under section 80-IA of the Act is allowed to the assessee with respect to the business referred therein is carried on by the assessee. That particular business is known as the undertaking which

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

80G and 80GGB of the Act for the donations made by the undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. The deduction under section 80-IA of the Act is allowed to the assessee with respect to the business referred therein is carried on by the assessee. That particular business is known as the undertaking which

HARISHKUMAR KHUSHALRAY BHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2) NOW WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Harishkumar Khushalray Bhatt Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) P/1, Chandragupta Apartment Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Gordhandas Patel Hospital Vastrapur Ahmedabad. Pan : Abspb 3786 F (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Pritesh L. Shah, Ar : Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

80G was deleted on the basis of donation receipt and approval of the donee institution. As regards the addition of Rs.18,10,543/- under section 68, the CIT(A) granted partial relief and sustained the addition only to the extent of Rs.3,24,382/- in respect of three creditors whose creditworthiness remained unsubstantiated. Grounds challenging initiation of penalty proceedings were

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. GROW MORE FOUNDATION,, SABARKANTHA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

80G(5) of the Act since May 2008. For the Assessment Year 2014- 15, the assessee filed Nil Return. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. 2.1. On perusal of the Balance Sheet, the Assessing Officer found the Assessee trust had paid Rs. 10 Lacs as advance to Kapila Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and also investments

SHRI BALASHAH BAVA SANSTHA SARVAJANIK TRUST,ANAND vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee/applicant trust is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS) [2023] 153 taxmann.com 496 (Bombay)/[2023] 294 Taxman 766 (Bombay)/[2023] 457 ITR 18 (Bombay)[18-07-2023], the Bombay High ITA Nos. 303&304/Ahd/2025 Shri Balashah Bava Sanstha Sarvajanik Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst. Years –N.A. - 6– Court held that when there is no limitation provided under sub-section (2) of section 279 for submission or consideration

SHRI BALASHAH BAVA SANSTHA SARVAJANIK TRUST,ANAND vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee/applicant trust is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS) [2023] 153 taxmann.com 496 (Bombay)/[2023] 294 Taxman 766 (Bombay)/[2023] 457 ITR 18 (Bombay)[18-07-2023], the Bombay High ITA Nos. 303&304/Ahd/2025 Shri Balashah Bava Sanstha Sarvajanik Trust vs. CIT(E) Asst. Years –N.A. - 6– Court held that when there is no limitation provided under sub-section (2) of section 279 for submission or consideration

KALPESH DHANJIBHAI MAKASANA,SURENDRANAGAR vs. PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

80G(5) of the Act. 3. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 29-11-2021 submitted that Rs. 65,00,000/- donated to Shree Anandjibhai Motibhai Patel Charitable Trust, Wadhwan through banking channel and also furnished other details as required by the assessing officer. On due verification of the details, the assessing officer accepted the Returned Income and passed

SUGAM CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 968/Ahd/2013 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष" M/S. Sugam Construction Acit (Osd), Private Limited, Vs Circle – 8, 4Th Floor, Arun Complex, Opp. Ahmedabad C.U. Shah Collage, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-09 Pan : Aaccs 6759 H आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1612/Ahd/2013 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit (Osd), M/S. Sugam Construction Circle – 8, Vs Private Limited, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaccs 6759 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri P.M. Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri R. P. Maurya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/09/2017 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Mahavir Prasad:- These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad Dated 26.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds In Its Appeal Vide Ita No.968/Ahd/2013:- 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Against The Law, Equity & Justice. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Upholding The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Ao Of Interest Expenses Considering As Excessive Payment To The Persons Specified U/S 40A(2)(B) Of The Act Of Rs.15,65,236/-.

TDS, FBT, - Rs. 19529/- Service tax etc. 5. Disallowance of car hire charges - Rs. 102000/- u/s 40a(ia) of the Act 6. Disallowance of claim for deduction - Rs.5245490/- u/s 80IA Rs.9861410/- 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has given partial relief to the assessee; however, confirmed

THE DCIT.CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SUGAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 968/Ahd/2013 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष" M/S. Sugam Construction Acit (Osd), Private Limited, Vs Circle – 8, 4Th Floor, Arun Complex, Opp. Ahmedabad C.U. Shah Collage, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-09 Pan : Aaccs 6759 H आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1612/Ahd/2013 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit (Osd), M/S. Sugam Construction Circle – 8, Vs Private Limited, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaccs 6759 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri P.M. Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri R. P. Maurya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/09/2017 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Mahavir Prasad:- These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad Dated 26.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds In Its Appeal Vide Ita No.968/Ahd/2013:- 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Against The Law, Equity & Justice. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Upholding The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Ao Of Interest Expenses Considering As Excessive Payment To The Persons Specified U/S 40A(2)(B) Of The Act Of Rs.15,65,236/-.

TDS, FBT, - Rs. 19529/- Service tax etc. 5. Disallowance of car hire charges - Rs. 102000/- u/s 40a(ia) of the Act 6. Disallowance of claim for deduction - Rs.5245490/- u/s 80IA Rs.9861410/- 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has given partial relief to the assessee; however, confirmed

M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

TDS on salary. Accordingly, AO held that even otherwise it is disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

TDS on salary. Accordingly, AO held that even otherwise it is disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. IT(TP)A Nos.1782/Del/2014 & 781/Del/2015 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT/Addl.CIT Asst.Years – 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively 12.6. In view of the above, the AO held that reversal of Rs. 21,79,471/- in respect of option not exercised by the employee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

5. As against the Grounds of Appeal raised by both parties, five issues/disallowances were already considered by this Tribunal in ITA No.3003/Ahd/2010 & ors. relating to A.Ys. 2003-04 & ors., vide order dated 28.02.2022. It is being agreed by both the parties that those four issues are already covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No.3003/Ahd/2010. Similarly, issue regarding disallowance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

5. As against the Grounds of Appeal raised by both parties, five issues/disallowances were already considered by this Tribunal in ITA No.3003/Ahd/2010 & ors. relating to A.Ys. 2003-04 & ors., vide order dated 28.02.2022. It is being agreed by both the parties that those four issues are already covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No.3003/Ahd/2010. Similarly, issue regarding disallowance

GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

5. As against the Grounds of Appeal raised by both parties, five issues/disallowances were already considered by this Tribunal in ITA No.3003/Ahd/2010 & ors. relating to A.Ys. 2003-04 & ors., vide order dated 28.02.2022. It is being agreed by both the parties that those four issues are already covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No.3003/Ahd/2010. Similarly, issue regarding disallowance