BHANUPRASAD MAGANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

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

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

gain as the “business income” of the assessee and also denied the exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee submitted that the determination of character of a particular investment in immovable property or any movable property like shares and securities, whether the same

DCIT, CIR.4(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LALITBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

gain and also claim deduction under section 54B of the Act by observing as follows: “……5.3 The facts of the case, submissions of the appellant and findings of the AO have been considered thoroughly. The appellant with other partner, Shri Bharatbhai Patel entered into Banakhat with Vendor, Shri I.T.A Nos. 1963 & 1965/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 4 DCIT

DCIT, CIR, 4(2), AHMEDABAD vs. BHARATKUMAR BABUBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

gain and also claim deduction under section 54B of the Act by observing as follows: “……5.3 The facts of the case, submissions of the appellant and findings of the AO have been considered thoroughly. The appellant with other partner, Shri Bharatbhai Patel entered into Banakhat with Vendor, Shri I.T.A Nos. 1963 & 1965/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 4 DCIT

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)

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent

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)

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent

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)

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent

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)

255 ITR 273 (SC) which held that “the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.” The Court declines to frame a question on the above issue.” 21. Apart from the above, we have a binding precedent

JITENDRA VADILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2021-22

255, Ghanti Faliyu, Income Tax Department, Vasna Keliya, ITO Ward 7(2)(1), Vasna, Ahmedabad. Vs. Dholka, Ahmedabad – 387 810 [PAN – AAWPP 0280 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mitul A. Ruparayl, CA Revenue by Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement 17.01.2024 O R D E R This appeal is filed

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain. In that view of the matter, the impugned amount of 33.23 lakhas on account of interest income from other loans and advances and miscellaneous income of 9.46 lakhs are rightly been treated as income from other sources. We, therefore, quash the order passed by the ITA Nos.318&414/Ahd/2020 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT/DCIT Asst.Year

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

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

255 ITR 273]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd (supra) has categorically stated that where the accounts are prepared in accordance with Companies Act and certified by the Auditor, then the assessing officer should not go beyond the net profit, except to the extent specifically provided under section 115JB of the Act observing as follows: “…the assessing

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

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

255 ITR 273]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd (supra) has categorically stated that where the accounts are prepared in accordance with Companies Act and certified by the Auditor, then the assessing officer should not go beyond the net profit, except to the extent specifically provided under section 115JB of the Act observing as follows: “…the assessing

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

gains derived from the activity of manufacturing. 24.2 On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the finding of the AO. 24.3 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 24.4 The learned AR before us submitted that the grant received by it has direct nexus and therefore

AHMED LAKADIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

4. The assessee had filed return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring total income of Rs. 13,01,460/- and claiming exempt income of Rs. 2,87,06,255/-. On verification of information, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus long term gain on which the assessee had claimed exemption under Section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain. In that view of the matter, the impugned amount of 26.74 lakhs on account of interest income from other loans and advances and miscellaneous income of 186.61 lakhs are rightly been treated as income from other sources. We, therefore, quash the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee and confirm the order

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gain. In that view of the matter, the impugned amount of 26.74 lakhs on account of interest income from other loans and advances and miscellaneous income of 186.61 lakhs are rightly been treated as income from other sources. We, therefore, quash the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee and confirm the order

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarn.K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. 7Th Floor, Popular House, Central Circle-1(2) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacn 9377 N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar Revenue By: Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr & Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 & 19.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.06.2025

255/- 63,753/- 16,71,502/- depreciation and interest 2 Disallowance of Interest 92,828/- - 92,838/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(ii) 3 Addition on account of 71,460/- - 71460/- gain accrued through power trading 4 Disallowance of prior 5,99,001/- - 5,91,001/- period expenses 5 Disallowance