MAHAMADBHAI RAHEMANBHAI MAKWANA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

delay condoned, the next issue is the adjudication of the quantum appeal on merits. The assessee has raised pertinent issues concerning the valuation of the properties, particularly the tenanted nature and legal disputes affecting the market value. These factors were not adequately considered by the Departmental Valuer or the AO in making the addition under Section 56(2)(x

AADI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aadi Real Estate Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 1(1)(1), 402, Sheel Complex, Mayur Ahmedabad Colony, Mithakhali, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aajca 1796 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 25.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Relating To The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Had Filed ‘Nil’ Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year, I.E. Ay 2012-13. Subsequently, On Information Received From Ddit (Inv.), Unit-1 (3), Ahmedabad, By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Was A Beneficiary Of Accommodation Entry Taken Through Dummy Companies Run & Controlled By One Jignesh Shah, Which Information Was Revealed Consequent To Search Action Conducted On Jignesh Shah, The Case Of The Aadi Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13 2

56,740/-. 6. The matter was carried in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who in turn confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising following grounds:- “1. Order u/s 147/148 is bad in Law. 2. Additions

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

condone such delay in preferring appeal before us. Both appeals are, therefore admitted. ITA No. 318/Ahd/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17):- 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has held to consider the interest on loans raised by erstwhile GEB for the purpose

DIVERSIFIED SERVICES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condoning the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. 3. Now on merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in providing manpower to different clients. The assessee filed its income tax return for assessment year 2019-20 under section 139(1) electronically declaring the total income of " 56,640/-. The return

RAJENDRA SHAKHARAM BADGUJAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Mr.Rajendra Shakharam Badgujar The Ito, Ward-5(3)(2) 42, Jay Raghunath Society Vs. Vejalpur Priya Cinema Road Ahmedabad. Krushnanagar Saijpur Ahmedabad 382 346. Pan : Afupb 1181 J (Applicant) (Responent)

56(2)(x), and proof of creditworthiness. The AO found that the property was jointly purchased by six parties, including the assessee, and that a payment of Rs.11,00,000 was made on 22.06.2020 to Shri Govind Kumar Veljibhai by cheque, as reflected in the deed. Observing several prior cash and other credits in the assessee’s bank account

SOLACE INN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2020-21

section 56(2)(x) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in not condoning the delay

RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal. ITA No. 1528/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 3. The fact of the case is that assessee filed return of income on 29th Nov, 2013 declaring total income at Rs. 12,28,38,184/-. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued

M/S. RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

condone the delay in filing this appeal. ITA No. 1528/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 3. The fact of the case is that assessee filed return of income on 29th Nov, 2013 declaring total income at Rs. 12,28,38,184/-. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued

M/S. VEEDA CLINICAL RESEARCH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Assesee is dismissed

Bench: Us Stating That It Was On Account Of Default Of The Chartered Accountant Of The Assessee That The Delay Occured Since He Forgot To Hand Over The Order To The Concerned Advocate For Filing The Appeal After The Assessee

56. Niharika Bungalows, Nr. Azad Society, Ambawadi, Amedabad, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- 1. I am a Chartered Accountant by profession. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the case of "Veeda Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd." for Assessment Year 2016-17 was received on 02.04.19 and therefore, appeal before Your

KETAN PRIYAVADAN SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-2021 Ketan Priyavadan Shah The Ito, Ward-1(2)(3) 6, Vidyanagar Co-Op Hsg. Society Vs. Vejalpur Ashram Road, Usmanpura Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Afgps 3703 K (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Assessee By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025

56(2)(x) (b) of the Act. 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act is unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act is unjustified. 9. Charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C are unjustified. 4. During the course of hearing before us the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

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

x) of the l.T. Act, 1961. (v) In the instant case, the assessee held the amount of Rs.2,47,943/- and Rs.19,36,095/- pertaining to A.Yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively illegally for number of years and instead of refunding the ill-gotten amount to Govt. account, the assessee chose to invest the money further as mentioned supra

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

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

x) of the l.T. Act, 1961. (v) In the instant case, the assessee held the amount of Rs.2,47,943/- and Rs.19,36,095/- pertaining to A.Yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively illegally for number of years and instead of refunding the ill-gotten amount to Govt. account, the assessee chose to invest the money further as mentioned supra

KHIMJI RAMDAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2) PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.500/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Khimji Ramdas India Pvt. Ltd., The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, City Square Godrej Ahmedabad, Vs. Garden City, Jagatpur, Present Jurisdiction Ahmedabad-382470 The Dcit, Pan : Aadck 6056 C Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Aatish Shah, Ar & Shri Anil N. Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 12.05.2023 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Ao Wd. 2(1)(2) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Impugned Order Which Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed & The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Have Similarly Cit(A) Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Impugned Order Vide His Order Passed Us.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Appeal Vide His Order Dtd.12-05-2023 Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052777862(1) Dtd. 12/05/2023. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Without Considering/Adjudicating

x) of the Act out of the loss allowed to be carried forward of Rs.35,72.242 as per appeal effect to the CIT(A)'s order dtd.26.04.2018 and thereby restricted the said amount of carried forward loss at Rs.8,52,970 (Rs.35,72.242 - Rs.27,19,302). Considering the same, it can be seen that, the order passed

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

X of the Act are totally separate and different. Under the transfer pricing provision it was to ascertain that the assessee has shown its profit at the arm length price in comparison to other assessee who are comparables whereas the provisions of section 80IA(10) of the Act deters/prevents the eligible unit to generate unreasonable profit in comparison

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

56,159 x Rs.5.39] A.Y.2008-09 Rs.1,62,26,344 [RMB 30,10,467 x Rs.5.39] I.T.A No. 1517 & 1621/Ahd/2019 A.Y.. 2008-09 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. 2.1. However during the assessment proceedings, the Assessee Company vide its letter dated 17-11-2011 claimed the Tax Credit in respect of these taxes withheld in China

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

56,159 x Rs.5.39] A.Y.2008-09 Rs.1,62,26,344 [RMB 30,10,467 x Rs.5.39] I.T.A No. 1517 & 1621/Ahd/2019 A.Y.. 2008-09 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. 2.1. However during the assessment proceedings, the Assessee Company vide its letter dated 17-11-2011 claimed the Tax Credit in respect of these taxes withheld in China

VAISHALI BABUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 380/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Vaishali Babubhai Patel, The Principal Commissioner B-201, Vs. Of Income Tax-3, Gala Gardenia Apartments, Ahmedabad. Nr. Safal Parisar, South Bopal, Ahmedabad-380058. Pan: Abdpp0233G

condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act erred in holding the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest

ITO, WARD-3(3)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI HEMANT HIRALAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah Ahmedabad. Vs 112, Devang Apartment, Opp: Patel Hospital Nehru Park Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Abjps 1499 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Karan Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 7, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Asst.Year 2014- 15. 2. Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Has A Delay Of 111 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Stating That He Was Away From Usa During The Period 12.5.2019 & 05.07.2019 When Form No.36 Filed By The Revenue Was Served On Him At His Address. The Form No.36

condoning the delay. 3. 4. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual drawing salary from partnership firm viz. Monarch Infra Venture and showing income from capital gain and income from other sources. For the Asst.Year 2014-15, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.3.2016 declaring total income at Rs.2,21,880/-. The return