SHRI AJAY REGHUBHAI BHARWAD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 45(1) of the act, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year I.T.A No. 595, 596 & 597/Ahd/2020 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page No 10 Shri Piyush M. Dobariya vs. ITO & Ors. shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains" with certain conditions and exemptions

SHRI PIYUSH M DOBARIYA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 45(1) of the act, any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year I.T.A No. 595, 596 & 597/Ahd/2020 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page No 10 Shri Piyush M. Dobariya vs. ITO & Ors. shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains" with certain conditions and exemptions

M/S. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

127 of the Act does not hold any footing as the Assessing Officer while passing the Assessment Order has taken precaution by issuing notice under Section 143(2) and also 143(2) read with Section 129 of the Act was also passed and served to the assessee. In fact, the notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

127 ITR 513, 515 (MP); All India Lakshmi Commercial Bank Officers Union v. Union of India [1984] 150 ITR 1 (Delhi); CIT v. Ceanattu Firms [1986] 160 ITR 588, 591 (Ker.). Another aspect which is incidental to the proposition that if there is no exempt income earned, there can be no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, is the revenue

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

127 ITR 513, 515 (MP); All India Lakshmi Commercial Bank Officers Union v. Union of India [1984] 150 ITR 1 (Delhi); CIT v. Ceanattu Firms [1986] 160 ITR 588, 591 (Ker.). Another aspect which is incidental to the proposition that if there is no exempt income earned, there can be no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, is the revenue

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

127 ITR 513, 515 (MP); All India Lakshmi Commercial Bank Officers Union v. Union of India [1984] 150 ITR 1 (Delhi); CIT v. Ceanattu Firms [1986] 160 ITR 588, 591 (Ker.). Another aspect which is incidental to the proposition that if there is no exempt income earned, there can be no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, is the revenue

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

127 ITR 513, 515 (MP); All India Lakshmi Commercial Bank Officers Union v. Union of India [1984] 150 ITR 1 (Delhi); CIT v. Ceanattu Firms [1986] 160 ITR 588, 591 (Ker.). Another aspect which is incidental to the proposition that if there is no exempt income earned, there can be no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, is the revenue

GAJIBEN MAHOTJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(8), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

Section 127 of the Act as noted above clearly states that succeeding AO is not required to re-issue any notice to the assessee. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore that succeeding AO in the present case i.e. ITO, Ward-3(3)(8) could have validly assumed jurisdiction to assess the case of the assessee only

UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

gain / loss arising on account of different exchange rates prevailing as on the date of payment and date of booking the goods / asset is debited to the profit and loss account by the Appellant which is in accordance with the accounting system regularly employed by it as well as the Accounting Standard - 11 issued by the ICAI

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL

Accordingly dismissed.\n18.9 Based on the findings and conclusions set out hereinabove, the\nappeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by\nthe assessee is partly allowed

2: Disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss\n- Rs.2,78,31,758:\n2.1 During the year under consideration, the Appellant had imported certain\nraw materials, capital goods and other items from various foreign countries.\nAs a matter of practice, the Appellant generally makes advance payment in\nforeign currency and then receives the delivery of the said raw materials or\ncapital

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

2 per cent. We observe that in the instant facts, the assessee has computed the ALP at LIBOR plus 2.5%. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has upheld the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer on the Ground that the assessee has not given the comparable basis for arriving at the aforesaid rate. However, in our view, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,NFAC PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

127/- without appreciating fact and law of the case properly. 2. Notice issued u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 is bad in law as the no proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 can be validly initiated on the basis of information and document received from the ITA Nos. 1802 to 1804/Ahd/2024 Ranjitsinh Kanubhai Rathod vs. ITO Asst.Years–2017-18 to 2019-20 search

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC PRESENT JURIDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

127/- without appreciating fact and law of the case properly. 2. Notice issued u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 is bad in law as the no proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 can be validly initiated on the basis of information and document received from the ITA Nos. 1802 to 1804/Ahd/2024 Ranjitsinh Kanubhai Rathod vs. ITO Asst.Years–2017-18 to 2019-20 search

RANJITSINH KANUBHAI RATHOD,KALOL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC PRESENT JURIDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

127/- without appreciating fact and law of the case properly. 2. Notice issued u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 is bad in law as the no proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 can be validly initiated on the basis of information and document received from the ITA Nos. 1802 to 1804/Ahd/2024 Ranjitsinh Kanubhai Rathod vs. ITO Asst.Years–2017-18 to 2019-20 search

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

2. The first issue raised by the assessee is that ld. CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by sustaining the addition on account of onetime accommodation entry of Rs. 12,29,45,000.00 treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 3 The assessee in the present case, a private limited

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

2. The first issue raised by the assessee is that ld. CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by sustaining the addition on account of onetime accommodation entry of Rs. 12,29,45,000.00 treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 3 The assessee in the present case, a private limited

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

2. The first issue raised by the assessee is that ld. CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by sustaining the addition on account of onetime accommodation entry of Rs. 12,29,45,000.00 treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 3 The assessee in the present case, a private limited

JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENT. CIR. 1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 401 To 403/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013 To 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 399 & 400/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2010-2011 & 2011-12)

2. The first issue raised by the assessee is that ld. CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by sustaining the addition on account of onetime accommodation entry of Rs. 12,29,45,000.00 treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 3 The assessee in the present case, a private limited