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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

purchase was on ad-hoc basis and cannot be the criteria for levying the penalty. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it is held that mere making of claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

purchase was on ad-hoc basis and cannot be the criteria for levying the penalty. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it is held that mere making of claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

purchase was on ad-hoc basis and cannot be the criteria for levying the penalty. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it is held that mere making of claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

purchase was on ad-hoc basis and cannot be the criteria for levying the penalty. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it is held that mere making of claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

purchase was on ad-hoc basis and cannot be the criteria for levying the penalty. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it is held that mere making of claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

purchase was on ad-hoc basis and cannot be the criteria for levying the penalty. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it is held that mere making of claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

purchase was on ad-hoc basis and cannot be the criteria for levying the penalty. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it is held that mere making of claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

purchase was on ad-hoc basis and cannot be the criteria for levying the penalty. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it is held that mere making of claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 145A of the I.T. Act, 1961 in utter disregard to the fact that the AO is not empowered to reject books of account u/s 145A of the Act which relates to the methodology of accounting in certain cases. 3.2 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in law and on facts in upholding the AO's action

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

145A of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT-A vide order dated 5th January 2007 was pleased to allow the claim of the assessee by observing as under: ITA Nos.722,218&1306/Ahd/2014 & ITA No. 1345/Ahd/2015 A.Ys. 2000-01&2007-08 to 2009-10 7 “7.2 I have considered the facts and submissions of the appellant and I am inclined

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

145A of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT-A vide order dated 5th January 2007 was pleased to allow the claim of the assessee by observing as under: ITA Nos.722,218&1306/Ahd/2014 & ITA No. 1345/Ahd/2015 A.Ys. 2000-01&2007-08 to 2009-10 7 “7.2 I have considered the facts and submissions of the appellant and I am inclined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI GOVIND JAIRAMDAS CHANGLANI, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

145A of IT Act. (6) The appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal. 5. Heard rival submissions at length and perused the materials placed on record including the Paper Book filed by the assessee. Let us deal with each ground wise the issue before

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. SHIVAM CONSTRUCTION CO.,, BARODA

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of assessee are dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 346 & CO No. 44/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 DCIT vs. M/s. Shivam Construction Co. 2. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “(1) Whether on facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has misdirected himself in holding that following