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?

36(1) (va) of the Act? 2 Aark Inforsoft Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT AY : 2017-18 3. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 55,91,349/- on account of difference in receipt between "Form 26AS" and "Profit and Loss account"? 4. Whether

NUTAN NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital gains. According to Principal CIT,\nthe Assessing Officer had failed to examine this important statutory\nrequirement and had allowed an excess deduction, causing under-\nassessment of income. This omission, in his view, made the assessment\norder erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.\n4.\nThe second controversy identified by Principal CIT was that the\nassessee had earned

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date. The AO also dealt with

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date. The AO also dealt with

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date. The AO also dealt with

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date. The AO also dealt with

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date. The AO also dealt with

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited beyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent amendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B relief is not available for employees’ contribution deposited beyond due date. The AO also dealt with

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT , BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited\nbeyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High\nCourt ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent\namendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B\nrelief is not available for employees' contribution deposited beyond due date.\nThe AO also dealt with

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

36(1)(va) of the Act since the same was deposited\nbeyond the statutory due date, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High\nCourt ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and subsequent\namendments brought by Finance Act 2021 which clarified that section 43B\nrelief is not available for employees' contribution deposited beyond due date.\nThe AO also dealt with

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

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

va) 71,060 Interest Capitalization of WIP 4,88,000 Prior Period Income 1,05,89,848 Interest free advances 4,24,000 Interest free advances to Shri Nilesh Keshavlal Patel 61,677 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has given partial relief to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

va) 71,060 Interest Capitalization of WIP 4,88,000 Prior Period Income 1,05,89,848 Interest free advances 4,24,000 Interest free advances to Shri Nilesh Keshavlal Patel 61,677 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has given partial relief to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved

VISHAL PLASTOMERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) Rs. 3,341/- 5. Addition u/s 41(1) Rs.7,65,98,856/- 6. Disallowance of capital expenses Rs. 16,61,419/- 3. The assessee filed appeal against the order to the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the assessees appeal, confirming the disallowance of bad debts, the addition made u/s 41(1

THE ITO, WARD-8(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL PLASTOMERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) Rs. 3,341/- 5. Addition u/s 41(1) Rs.7,65,98,856/- 6. Disallowance of capital expenses Rs. 16,61,419/- 3. The assessee filed appeal against the order to the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the assessees appeal, confirming the disallowance of bad debts, the addition made u/s 41(1

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)

va] rws 2[24][x] for delayed payment of employees contribution to ESIC of Rs.34,083/=. Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee fairly admitted that this issue is held against the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd reported in 448 ITR 518. Respectfully following the same, this Ground no. 6 raised

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)

va] rws 2[24][x] for delayed payment of employees contribution to ESIC of Rs.34,083/=. Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee fairly admitted that this issue is held against the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd reported in 448 ITR 518. Respectfully following the same, this Ground no. 6 raised

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 5 5.1 We find that, in this case, the amount was credited to the relevant account only after the due date. We find that this issue already stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 in ITA No.1872/Ahd/2016 (Order

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 5 5.1 We find that, in this case, the amount was credited to the relevant account only after the due date. We find that this issue already stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 in ITA No.1872/Ahd/2016 (Order

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 5 5.1 We find that, in this case, the amount was credited to the relevant account only after the due date. We find that this issue already stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 in ITA No.1872/Ahd/2016 (Order