KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) and 36(1)(i) were thus not satisfied. The CIT(A) has overlooked the findings/reasoning in the assessment order and deleted the addition mainly on the ground that funds for the purchase of cars were provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that dominion over the cars was not with the assessee

M/S. SURZLON GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 67-68/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 M/S. Suzlon Global Services Limited, Principal Commissioner 5 Suzlon, Shrimali Society, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Near Shree Krishna Centre, Ahmedabad. Nr. Judges Bunglow Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaics1406R

32(1) of the IT Act 'depreciation' is to be computed on 'actual cost'/'written down value of the block of assets' ascertained in accordance with the provision section 43 of the Act. Further, a reading of the above provision shows that in respect of 'capital assets' transferred by the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company, the cost/written down value

M/S. HAVMOR ICE CREAM LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Havmor Ice Cream Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Commerce House Iv Vs Income-Tax, Besides Shell Petrol Pump Circle-2(1)(1), Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aabch 6766 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Pramod M. Jagtap, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Dated 12.10.2017 & The Solitary Issue Relating To Disallowance Of Rs.15,52,172/- On Account Of Interest As Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) Is Raised Therein By Way Of The Following Original Grounds:- “Ground No.1 – Disallowance Of Rs.15,52,172/- Under Section 36(1)(Iii) Towards Capital Work In Progress (“Cwip”) 1. Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.15,52,172/- Under Section 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act On Account Of Expenditure Incurred By The Appellant On Cwip. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Considering The Facts That Expenditure Incurred On Cwip Ay 2013-14 Havmor Ice Cream Ltd. Vs. Dcit 2

32,147/- 4,09, 50,312/- 31/03/2012 3,42,014- 4,00,82,083/- Total 99,08,118/- From the above chart, it is very much apparent that when the CWIP payments were made by the appellant, the appellant was already availing the overdraft facility and there was credit balance in the bank account. So by making the payment

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view