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?

142(1) of the Act. Accordingly it was held that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was to be issued within the time prescribed from the date of filing return of income and not from the date of removal of defect u/s 139(9) of the Act. The relevant portion of the order reads as under

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)

ii) DCIT, Circle – Vaishnodevi Circle, S.G. 1(1)(1), Highway, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACC 6253 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) : Shri Mukesh Patel & Shri Jigar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by Patel, A.Rs. : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing 12/03/2024 30/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement

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

142(1), making the order under section 143(3) read with section 153C, along with the approval by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Furthermore, the judicial pronouncements cited by the appellant are fully applicable to the case. 8. The Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in failing to properly

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

142(1), making the order under section 143(3) read with section 153C, along with the approval by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Furthermore, the judicial pronouncements cited by the appellant are fully applicable to the case. 8. The Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in failing to properly

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

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

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

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

M/S. SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

gains had not been included by application of provisions of sub-section 7B of section 10A, the ITA Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (M/s. Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 12 – undertaking being unit shall be entitled to deduction referred to in this sub- section only for the unexpired period of ten consecutive assessment years and thereafter

M/S. SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

gains had not been included by application of provisions of sub-section 7B of section 10A, the ITA Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (M/s. Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 12 – undertaking being unit shall be entitled to deduction referred to in this sub- section only for the unexpired period of ten consecutive assessment years and thereafter

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

1), making the order under section 143(3) read with section\n153C, along with the approval by the Addl. CIT under section\n153D, not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Furthermore,\nthe judicial pronouncements cited by the appellant are fully\napplicable to the case.\n8. The Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in failing to\nproperly consider

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

1), making the order under section 143(3) read with section\n153C, along with the approval by the Addl. CIT under section\n153D, not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Furthermore,\nthe judicial pronouncements cited by the appellant are fully\napplicable to the case.\n8. The Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in failing to\nproperly consider

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

142(1) of the Act was issued on 03.11.2017 and served personally,\nfixing the hearing for 10.11.2017.\n2. 1. The assessee submitted a written reply on 01.12.2017, along with a copy\nof the ITR acknowledgment, computation of total income, and supporting\ndocuments related to the claim of deductions under Sections 54 and 54B of\nthe Act. Upon verification of records

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

capital gain. (ii) Scrutiny of records, it was noticed from the assets of the balance sheet for AY 2012- 13 that there was an agricultural land amounting to Rs. 1.73,25,167 (including land purchased during the year R.S. no. 665/P/l for Rs. 15.54,000) under the head investment. However, the balance sheet of the previous 'year

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