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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

iv) The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Chemmancherry Estates Co. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-VIII(2) [2019] 111 taxmann.com 66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

iv) The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Chemmancherry Estates Co. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-VIII(2) [2019] 111 taxmann.com 66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

iv) The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Chemmancherry Estates Co. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-VIII(2) [2019] 111 taxmann.com 66 (Madras) [09- 08-2019] has held as under :- III. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Capital gains) - Assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 - Whether

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

gain / loss arising on account of\ndifferent exchange rates prevailing as on the date of payment and date of\nbooking the goods / asset is debited to the profit and loss account by the\nAppellant which is in accordance with the accounting system regularly\nemployed by it as well as the Accounting Standard - 11 issued by the ICAI.\n2.2

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital expenditure not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 7.2 Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who relied on the decisions of Ld. CIT(A) for the preceding years i.e. AYs 2008- 09 to 2010-11, deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,57,98,657/- on account of product registration. 7.3 We find that

RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital expenditure not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. 7.2 Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who relied on the decisions of Ld. CIT(A) for the preceding years i.e. AYs 2008- 09 to 2010-11, deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,57,98,657/- on account of product registration. 7.3 We find that

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

iv) and 41(1). The assessee's first appeal was allowed by the Commissioner, but his order was reversed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, forcing the assessee to file a tax case appeal before the High Court of Delhi. 30. In Logitronics, two substantial questions of law were taken up for consideration by the Delhi High Court and they

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

iv) and 41(1). The assessee's first appeal was allowed by the Commissioner, but his order was reversed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, forcing the assessee to file a tax case appeal before the High Court of Delhi. 30. In Logitronics, two substantial questions of law were taken up for consideration by the Delhi High Court and they

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

iv) and 41(1). The assessee's first appeal was allowed by the Commissioner, but his order was reversed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, forcing the assessee to file a tax case appeal before the High Court of Delhi. 30. In Logitronics, two substantial questions of law were taken up for consideration by the Delhi High Court and they

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

iv) and 41(1). The assessee's first appeal was allowed by the Commissioner, but his order was reversed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, forcing the assessee to file a tax case appeal before the High Court of Delhi. 30. In Logitronics, two substantial questions of law were taken up for consideration by the Delhi High Court and they