SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

gains of business or profession". (emphasis supplied) From the bare reading of this provision, it is evident that Section 58 of the Act has an overriding effect on the deduction as admissible under Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the provision of Section 40A of the Act has to be mandatorily applied while ITA Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 [Shri Girishbhai

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

gains of business or profession". (emphasis supplied) From the bare reading of this provision, it is evident that Section 58 of the Act has an overriding effect on the deduction as admissible under Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, the provision of Section 40A of the Act has to be mandatorily applied while ITA Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 [Shri Girishbhai

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

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

M S HOSTEL,NEW SAMA SAVLI ROAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), VADODARA, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

gains of business or profession." Thus, the basic and foremost requirement of allowability of any expense it should be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and should not be in nature of capital or personal expenditure. 1. Secondly, the provisions of section 40A speaks about non allowability of expenses or payments in certain circumstances. Sub-section 2

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI KAILASH RAMAVATAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

capital gains year-wise as computed and directed by the CIT(A). B. Grounds relating to Addition in respect of Internal Circulation of Funds and Unaccounted Receipts and Payments 15. The issue involved under these grounds pertain to unaccounted cash receipts and unaccounted cash payments, as reflected in the seized documents during the search operation. The AO made substantial additions

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INFRA PIPES PVT. LTD.,, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

40A(3) of the Act. Since the amounts involved in all these issues are very small, the same are dismissed without going into the merits of the case, for which the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has no objection. Thus the above Grounds No. 2 to 4 and Ground No. 6 are hereby dismissed. 7. Ground No.5: The Ld.CIT

GUJARAT INFRAPIPES PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

40A(3) of the Act. Since the amounts involved in all these issues are very small, the same are dismissed without going into the merits of the case, for which the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has no objection. Thus the above Grounds No. 2 to 4 and Ground No. 6 are hereby dismissed. 7. Ground No.5: The Ld.CIT

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

gains of business, Section 40A(2)(b) does not apply to me. 13. Details of addition/disallowance made for scrutiny assessment occasions for the relevant assessment years and explain as to why similar addition/disallowance should not be made for the year under review. Please also furnish copy of order passed u/s.143(3)/147/154/263 of the Act, if any, for the relevant

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

gains of business, Section 40A(2)(b) does not apply to me. 13. Details of addition/disallowance made for scrutiny assessment occasions for the relevant assessment years and explain as to why similar addition/disallowance should not be made for the year under review. Please also furnish copy of order passed u/s.143(3)/147/154/263 of the Act, if any, for the relevant

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

gains of business, Section 40A(2)(b) does not apply to me. 13. Details of addition/disallowance made for scrutiny assessment occasions for the relevant assessment years and explain as to why similar addition/disallowance should not be made for the year under review. Please also furnish copy of order passed u/s.143(3)/147/154/263 of the Act, if any, for the relevant

DINESHBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRXLE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2)(vii) and Rs. 11,43,895/- attributed to short-term capital gains. During the review of the case records, Principal CIT noted that the cash book for the relevant year reflected multiple cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- to various individuals on the same day, which contravened section 40A

MAYUR DYECHEM INTERMEDIATES LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40A(2) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts attributing partner's remuneration of Rs.3,80,000/- to the solar power unit. Remuneration taken by the partners is based on mutual agreement and it is not mandatory to take remuneration from each business unit. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

2 Apollo Hospitals International Ltd. 138382149 3 IRM Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. 462898 4 Karnavati Engineering Ltd. 25000000 5 Casil Health Products Ltd. 17608368 6 Casil Industries Ltd. 20300405 7 Kedara Yakuhin Ltd. 460000 All these details were reflected in Assessee’s financials more specifically in Note 12 and Note 16 and is evident that it has been given

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

2 Apollo Hospitals International Ltd. 138382149 3 IRM Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. 462898 4 Karnavati Engineering Ltd. 25000000 5 Casil Health Products Ltd. 17608368 6 Casil Industries Ltd. 20300405 7 Kedara Yakuhin Ltd. 460000 All these details were reflected in Assessee’s financials more specifically in Note 12 and Note 16 and is evident that it has been given

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

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of depreciation on motor

SHAILESH K PATEL-HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 288/Ahd/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shailesh K. Patel Huf The Income Tax Officer बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Ward – 3(3)(5), Vs. Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Time Square – I, Op. Ram Baug Bungalow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalhs9548E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Ketan Shah & Shri Aman Shah, अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : A.Rs. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr 04/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 24.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:

2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. In the course of assessment, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed LTCG of Rs.73,29,100/- as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act, which was derived on sale of shares of Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Ltd. (LDPL) and Mahavir Advanced Remedies Ltd. (MARL). In the course of assessment

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)

40A(2)(b). However, it is equally true the transaction of payment of interest was subject to domestic transfer pricing provisions u/s. 92BA of the Act. and after conducting an exhaustive FAR analysis of the transaction, it has been found that the rate of 9% p.a. paid by the Appellant conforms to the arm's length standards. Under these circumstances

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)

40A(2)(b). However, it is equally true the transaction of payment of interest was subject to domestic transfer pricing provisions u/s. 92BA of the Act. and after conducting an exhaustive FAR analysis of the transaction, it has been found that the rate of 9% p.a. paid by the Appellant conforms to the arm's length standards. Under these circumstances