AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of Section 72, or sub-section (2) of Section 73 or sub-section (2) of section 73-A, or sub- section (1) or sub- section (3) of section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74-A, he may furnish, within

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Capital Gain, which was accepted by the AO. Further, no revenue loss has occurred as the income would have been taxed at the same rate irrespective of the head of income under which it was offered." 5. The appellant humbly submit that the Ld. AO has conducted a detailed and thorough inquiry under Section 142(1

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Capital Gain, which was accepted by the AO. Further, no revenue loss has occurred as the income would have been taxed at the same rate irrespective of the head of income under which it was offered." 5. The appellant humbly submit that the Ld. AO has conducted a detailed and thorough inquiry under Section 142(1

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

Section 142(1) of the Act, the details whereupon were duly filed by the assessee through electronic media on e-proceeding. The assessee had shown total turnover of Rs.65,54,16,69,939/-, on which, net profit before tax has been declared at Rs.24,33,45,21,094/-. The assessee has shown income from house property, capital gain

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

142(1). The\nadditions made by the Assessing Officer comprised the following:\ni. Software expenditure of Rs.31,96,245/-\nii. Testing fees of Rs.50,29,391/-\niii. Consultancy charges of Rs.2,18,58,050/-\niv. Foreign exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.3,17,88,107/-\nV. Interest expenditure of Rs.1,76,03,597/-\n4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal

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

142(1). The additions made by the Assessing Officer comprised the following: i. Software expenditure of Rs.31,96,245/- ii. Testing fees of Rs.50,29,391/- iii. Consultancy charges of Rs.2,18,58,050/- iv. Foreign exchange fluctuation loss of Rs.3,17,88,107/- v. Interest expenditure of Rs.1,76,03,597/- ITA No.623 and 632/Ahd/2024 3 4. Being aggrieved

THE ACIT. CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDBAD vs. RAJENDRA HARJIVANDAS PRAJAPATI, AHMEDBAD

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

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

gains. The section 54EC investment was required to be made within 6 months ie. on or before 21.04.2008. The appellant invested Rs. 50 lakhs in REC bonds on 31.12.2007 (F.Y. 2007-08, within the 6 M time limit) and Rs.50 lakhs in NHAI bonds on 26.5.2008 (F.Y. 2008-08, beyond the 6 M time limit) and claimed a deduction

RAJENDRA HARJIVANDAS PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

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

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

gains. The section 54EC investment was required to be made within 6 months ie. on or before 21.04.2008. The appellant invested Rs. 50 lakhs in REC bonds on 31.12.2007 (F.Y. 2007-08, within the 6 M time limit) and Rs.50 lakhs in NHAI bonds on 26.5.2008 (F.Y. 2008-08, beyond the 6 M time limit) and claimed a deduction

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain, which\nwas accepted by the AO. Further, no revenue loss has occurred\nas the income would have been taxed at the same rate\nirrespective of the head of income under which it was offered.\"\n5. The appellant humbly submit that the Ld. AO has conducted a\ndetailed and thorough inquiry under Section 142(1

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain, which\nwas accepted by the AO. Further, no revenue loss has occurred\nas the income would have been taxed at the same rate\nirrespective of the head of income under which it was offered.\"\n5. The appellant humbly submit that the Ld. AO has conducted a\ndetailed and thorough inquiry under Section 142(1

MR. JOBANJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO. WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.264/Ahd/2019\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nMr. Jobanji Thakor\nThe ITO\nF-40, Abugiri Society\nबनाम / Ward-3(2)(2)\nTal. Daskroi, Jagatpur\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad - 382 470\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AKNPT 2930 M\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Mehul K. Patel, AR\nRevenue by :\nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of

capital gain computation. The\nmain reason for scrutiny was that the sale consideration shown in the Income\nTax Return (ITR) was lower than the valuation by the Stamp Duty Authority.\nConsequently, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18.09.2017\nand served via speed post, with a hearing fixed on 03.10.2017. Subsequently,\nnotice under Section 142(1

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)

142 taxmann.com 136 held that where interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee’s own funds and proportionate disallowance was not warranted u/s.14A of the Act by observing as follows: “Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation

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)

142 taxmann.com 136 held that where interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee’s own funds and proportionate disallowance was not warranted u/s.14A of the Act by observing as follows: “Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation

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)

142 taxmann.com 136 held that where interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee’s own funds and proportionate disallowance was not warranted u/s.14A of the Act by observing as follows: “Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation

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)

142 taxmann.com 136 held that where interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee’s own funds and proportionate disallowance was not warranted u/s.14A of the Act by observing as follows: “Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital gains was offered to tax in the return or whether it was properly accounted for. More crucially, since A.Y. 2011-12 was an unabated year for the purposes of section 153A proceedings, the AO could not have made any additions unless incriminating documents were found during the search. The assessment record does not mention any such incriminating material that

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

capital gains was offered to tax in the return or whether it was properly accounted for. More crucially, since A.Y. 2011-12 was an unabated year for the purposes of section 153A proceedings, the AO could not have made any additions unless incriminating documents were found during the search. The assessment record does not mention any such incriminating material that

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

section 142(1) were issued to which detailed replies were filed. The Assessing Officer applied his mind to the documents and explanations furnished, including the registered valuer's report, and thereafter accepted the capital gains

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

section 142(1) were issued to which detailed replies were filed. The Assessing Officer applied his mind to the documents and explanations furnished, including the registered valuer's report, and thereafter accepted the capital gains