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

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

vi) was produced. In absence of any proof, the AO disallowed the entire amount of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed under section 80G and added the same to the total income. 6. In addition, the AO examined the balance sheet and observed that the closing balance of unsecured loans for the year under consideration stood at Rs.55,00,393/- as compared

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)

vi) and computation of deduction claim u/s. 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

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

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,(CPC) BANGALORE (JAO DDCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1) VADODARA, VADODARA GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

5) of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the tax regime opted by the Appellant u/s 115BAA of the Act for the year under consideration without appreciating the fact that all conditions prescribed under sub-section 2 of section 115BAA were satisfied during

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

vi) Miscellaneous receipts (Including Scrap Sales of Rs. 10,72,87,989) Rs.11,57,69,618 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the assessee's plea that it was not a fit case for levy of interest u/s.234A, u/s.234B, u/s.234C and u/s.2340 and he in particular erred

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

SECTION 35AC OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO Rs.2,36,08,173/- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of denying the deduction u/s 35AC of the Act on the alleged ground that the amount contributed to the eligible institution is spent for non-eligible

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

80G of the Act. The AO further observed that the recipients did not show the amount as taxable receipts but accounted as donations. 24.3. The AO also noticed that the assessee has also not deducted TDS on such expenditure, therefore the same cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the said