TIKI TAR INDUSTRIES BARODA LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2014-15 Tiki Tar Industries Baroda Ltd. Pr.Cit-2 8Th Floor, Neptune Tower Vs Vadodara. Baroda Productivity Council Alkapuri, Vadodara Pan : Aadct 8382 Q

delay in filing the present appeal is accordingly condoned. 8. We shall now proceed to adjudicate the appeal before us on merit. 7 9. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, as they are a blend of descriptive and argumentative contents.In fact,these

MATESHWARI BUS OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2, AHEMDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmateshwari Bus Operations Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Tds, Ward-2, U-7, Swastik House, Near Old Ahmedabad. High Court, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. [Pan :Ahmm13678 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Amit Mundhra, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Mumbai (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Treating The Bona Fide Inter- Corporate Loan Of Rs.20,00,000/- Advanced By The Assessee To M/S Tak Bus Operations Pvt. Ltd. As "Deemed Dividend" Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & In Holding The Assessee To Be An Assessee In Default Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) For Not Deducting Tax At Source Under Section 194 Of The Act. The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Transaction Was A Commercial Loan, Fully Disclosed & Subsequently Repaid By The Recipient, The Assessee Was Not The Beneficial Owner Of Shares In The Recipient Company, No Benefit Accrued To Any Shareholder Individually & The Conditions Of Section 2(22)(E) Were Not Satisfied Either In Letter Or In Spirit. The Impugned Order Is Therefore Bad In Law, Based On Presumptions & Liable To Be Quashed In Its Entirety.” Maheshwari Bus Operation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year 2015-16 - 2–

Delay Condoned This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-7, Mumbai (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “That

VIJAY CREDIT AND SUPPLY CO. OP. SOCIETY,DHOLKA vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring total income at Rs. NIL and had claimed deduction under Section 80P of Rs. 79,59,325/-. 7. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

delay of 86 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Brief Facts of the Case 4. The assessee company, Atul Ltd., is engaged in the business of manufacturing dyes, specialty chemicals, agrochemicals, bulk drugs, commodity chemicals, and power generation. For AY 2017–18, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2017 declaring total income

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

dividend is declared. Even otherwise, higher amount of inward remittance would result in higher foreign exchange earnings by India. In any case, as submitted by the A.R. that the appellant has paid substantial amount of tax amounting Rs.1.23 Crores and 1.44 Crores for A.Y.2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively and therefore also, there is no loss of revenue to the nation

M. PRATAPRAY PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay of 125 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. On merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its original return of income on 28.09.2017 declaring total income of ₹12,01,91,670/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

deemed to have been derived therefrom. (11) The Central Government may, after making such inquiry as it may think fit, direct, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the exemption conferred by this section shall not apply to any class of industrial undertaking or enterprise with effect from such date as it may specify in the notification. (12) Where

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

deemed to have been derived therefrom. (11) The Central Government may, after making such inquiry as it may think fit, direct, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the exemption conferred by this section shall not apply to any class of industrial undertaking or enterprise with effect from such date as it may specify in the notification. (12) Where

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

deemed to have been derived therefrom. (11) The Central Government may, after making such inquiry as it may think fit, direct, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the exemption conferred by this section shall not apply to any class of industrial undertaking or enterprise with effect from such date as it may specify in the notification. (12) Where

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, BHAVNAGAR vs. SHRI YOGENDRA RATILAL SHETH,, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the department in ITA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

dividend u/s.2(22)(e) particularly when prima facie part of the funds were utilized by the assessee for its personal expenses. ii. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the balance funds of Rs.43,25,504/ were used for the advantage of the proprietary concern of the assessee if not for the personal expenses of the assessee. 2. The relevant

SARLABEN R. ARORA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.2072/Ahd/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008

condone the delay. 5. Now we proceed to deal with the merit of the matter. The appellant is an individual declaring income from long term capital gain and other sources of income by filing return of income on 26.12.2007 declaring total income at Rs.3,42,781/- in the Assessment Year 2007-08. Upon scrutiny the matter was re-opened

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

delay is condoned. The appeals pertaining to 17 I.T.A No. 1894/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2000-01 Page No Manjulaben Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. A.Y. 2010-11 are IT(SS)A No.569/Ahd/2019 filed by the assessee and IT(SS)A No.01/Ahd/2020 filed by the Revenue with CO No.47/Ahd/2020. 21. We have heard Shri Tushar Hemani