MAHESHRAJ CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.791/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1999-2000 Dcit, Mahesraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4, Vs. 141, Phase Ii, Gidc, Vatva, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-382330 Pan:Aabcm0424C

condone the delay of 1569 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the adjudication. 9. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 and 2 is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by not granting deduction under section 80HHC

DEEP INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

delay of 462 days in filling of the instant appeal seems to be bonafide, reasonable, sufficient and unintentional, hence deserves to be condoned. Consequently the same stands condoned. 5. On merits, the counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 12 the paper book to submit that as at 31-03-2009, the assessee had reserves and surplus amounting

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. HARSHA ENGINEERS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2112/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Vs. M/S.Harsha Engineerings Ltd. Ahmedabad. Sakhej Bavla Road Po Changodar Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaach 4828 C

condone the delay of 20 days in filing appeal by the Revenue, and we proceed to adjudicate the issue agitated in the appeal. 4. Only substantive ground raised in the Revenue’s appeal is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of Rs.1,54,01,047/- under section 14A

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

14A of the Act of Rs. 20,18,138/- by the Ld. A.O. 3. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” 3. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along-with an Affidavit for delay of 125 days in filing of the present appeal

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

condone the delay in filing the CO of the assessee. Hence, we admit the CO filed by the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merit. 28. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground no-1 of its cross objection is that the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the alternate claim for deduction under section

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

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

condone the delay of one day beyond the limitation as provided u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. If justice is pitted against technicalities, the Courts will lean towards advancement of justice rather than technicalities. We order accordingly. 12. The assessee has raised following grounds in CO in memo of CO filed with ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, which is listed

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

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

condone the delay of one day beyond the limitation as provided u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. If justice is pitted against technicalities, the Courts will lean towards advancement of justice rather than technicalities. We order accordingly. 12. The assessee has raised following grounds in CO in memo of CO filed with ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, which is listed

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

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

condone the delay of one day beyond the limitation as provided u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. If justice is pitted against technicalities, the Courts will lean towards advancement of justice rather than technicalities. We order accordingly. 12. The assessee has raised following grounds in CO in memo of CO filed with ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, which is listed

VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground No.7 raised by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2009-10 Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., The Acit, Circle-8, 301 Sheel Complex, 4 Mayur Colony, Vs Ahmebada. Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan :Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms Urvashi Shodhan, Advocate Revenue By : Shria. P. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of Rs.9,460/- under section 14A

GUJARAT INFORMATICS LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

section 67A which is disallowable u/s. 14A r.w.s. 8D of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee committed default in not disallowing the expenditure related to exempt income u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act which resulted in income to the tune of Rs. 1,43,93,193/-. The assessee has not filed the explanation regarding

NIRMA CHEMICAL WORKS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Ltd. V. Tax Nirma House Circle-3(1)(1) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Near Income Tax Circle Gujarat Ahmedabad-380 009 Gujarat Pan: Aaacn 5353 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Hemanshu Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 & 23.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 19/05/2022 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2013-14 (Din & Order No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043081956(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld.Cit(A) From Rectification Order Dated 16/02/2022 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 154 Of The 1961 Act (Din & Order Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. V. Dcit Ay 2013-14

Section 253(6)(d). Thus, the appeal fee paid was deficient by Rs. 9500/- which the assesse is required to deposit, were the contention of ld. DR. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assesse will deposit the deficient fee of Rs. 9,500/- , although the assesse was earlier having a bonafide belief that the assesse was liable

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

14A – Rs. 8,07,84,146 as discussed Book Profit u/s. 115JB Rs. 2011,70,46,681 Tax @ 18.5% Rs. 372,16,53,636 9. Ultimately, the assessment order was passed determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,04,62,99,990/- under Section 143C(B) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Act under the normal provision

SHREE VYANKATESHWAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHEMDABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2599 & 2600/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shree Vyankateshwar Engg. P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.4(1)(2) Nr. Everest Cinema Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Jain Rakshabandhan Potalia Talav, Bapunagar Ahmedabad 380 024 Pan : Aabcs 5531 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.Dr

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. As far as Asstt.Year 2013-14 is concerned, the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 10.3.2016. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing that w.e.f. 1.3.2016, the assessee was required to submit appeal electronically whereas he has filed it manually. On account

SHREE VYANKATESHWAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHEMDABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2599 & 2600/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shree Vyankateshwar Engg. P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.4(1)(2) Nr. Everest Cinema Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Jain Rakshabandhan Potalia Talav, Bapunagar Ahmedabad 380 024 Pan : Aabcs 5531 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.Dr

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. As far as Asstt.Year 2013-14 is concerned, the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 10.3.2016. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing that w.e.f. 1.3.2016, the assessee was required to submit appeal electronically whereas he has filed it manually. On account

TRISHA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

section 14A Rs.5,90,932/- (b) On account of withdrawal of Right Rs.22,00,000/- (c) Loss on sale of asset Rs.10,730/- (d) On account of difference in Rs.97,101/- depreciation (e) On account of Brokerage Rs.7,70,000/- Expenses (f) Prior Period Expenses Rs.4,890/- Rs.36,73,653/- Total Income Assessed Rs.1,10,07,810/- 4. Being aggrieved

RAJNIKANTH S BHALAVAT,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Final Appeal.”

condonation of delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. 4.1 The counsel for the assessee submitted that the before going into the merits of the case, he would like to press for the additional ground of appeal which goes into the root to the matter. The counsel for the assessee submitted that a perusal of the notice issued

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TGB BANQUEST AND HOTELS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rifaur Rahman

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. The ld.CIT(A) has rightly considered the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and has rightly placed on it. Therefore, no interference is called in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue. ITA No.1017/Ahd/2017 with CO 3 5. In the next ground of appeal, the grievance

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC LTD., VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 Dict, Cir.1(1)(1) Ms.Alembic Ltd. Vadodara. Vs Alembic Road Vadodara-3. Pan : Aabca 7950 P

condone the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, and take up appeal of the Revenue for adjudication on merit. 4. In the appeal filed by the Revenue the following grounds are raised: “1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) is justified, in allowing the appeal on disallowance u/s 14A