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 r.w.s. Rule 8D of the Rules. 8.Learned Counsel for the assessee, informs the Bench that assessee, does not wish to press ground No.1, therefore, we dismiss ground No.1, as not pressed. 9.Ground No.2 relates

M/S. K.B.MEHTA CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2010/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. K.B. Mehta Construction Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., 509, Milestone, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Opp. T.V. Tower, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad.

condone the delay and proceed to decide the issue on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Asstt. Year 2012-13 4 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the disallowance ofinterest expenses of Rs.3,11,0107-u/s.36

M/S.KOLET RESORTS CLUB PVT.LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

condonation of delay for filing of appeal by the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-2, ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant company has made a mistake in filing the appeal with the Income Tax Officer instead of Commissioner of Income Tax due to which there has been a delay in the filing of appeal with

DIAMOND INFOSYSTEMS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.701/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-2005 Diamond Infosystems Ltd. A.C.I.T, Circle-1(2), (Previously Enterprise Intelligent Vs. Systems Ltd) Baroda. 5/12, Bidc, Gorwa, Baroda.

depreciation be allowed on the same. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify the above ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 3. At the outset, it was observed that there is a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee by 324 days. In this regard

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)

depreciation on the above (as per Para No.7) 10. Trade Mark Registration fee & Rs. 14,14,36,698 Patent Fee (as per Para No. 8) 11. Research & Development Rs. 109,74,61,000 (as per Para No. 9) 12.Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act Rs.8,05,91,640/- Rs.234,23,50,734/- (as per Para No. 10) Assessed Business Income

BALAJI ELECTRICAL INSULATORS PVT. LTD (SINCE MERGE WITH GOLF CERAMICS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Madhumita Roy

condoned as of the opinion of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal has been finally rejected on this preliminary ground of limitation. While doing so the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Prashant Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 37 taxmann.com 137. 5. On the other hand the assessee relied upon the judgment passed

BALAJI ELECTRICAL INSULATORS PVT. LTD (SINCE MERGE WITH GOLF CERAMICS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Madhumita Roy

condoned as of the opinion of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal has been finally rejected on this preliminary ground of limitation. While doing so the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Prashant Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 37 taxmann.com 137. 5. On the other hand the assessee relied upon the judgment passed

TURAKHIA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.677/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16)

condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of decorative veneers and ply- woods and other related products and also dealing in finance & trading in shares and securities since last many years. The assessee filed its return of income on 09/09/2015

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, donation, insurance expenses and loan interest amounting to Rs. 5,82,162/-. The ld. Assessing Officer held that in absence of any explanation, the assessee did not conduct any business and the assessee has earned only ‘interest income’ which is considered as ‘income from other sources’. Since the expenses claimed are not allowable against any income other than ‘income

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, donation, insurance expenses and loan interest amounting to Rs. 5,82,162/-. The ld. Assessing Officer held that in absence of any explanation, the assessee did not conduct any business and the assessee has earned only ‘interest income’ which is considered as ‘income from other sources’. Since the expenses claimed are not allowable against any income other than ‘income

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, donation, insurance expenses and loan interest amounting to Rs. 5,82,162/-. The ld. Assessing Officer held that in absence of any explanation, the assessee did not conduct any business and the assessee has earned only ‘interest income’ which is considered as ‘income from other sources’. Since the expenses claimed are not allowable against any income other than ‘income

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, donation, insurance expenses and loan interest amounting to Rs. 5,82,162/-. The ld. Assessing Officer held that in absence of any explanation, the assessee did not conduct any business and the assessee has earned only ‘interest income’ which is considered as ‘income from other sources’. Since the expenses claimed are not allowable against any income other than ‘income

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, donation, insurance expenses and loan interest amounting to Rs. 5,82,162/-. The ld. Assessing Officer held that in absence of any explanation, the assessee did not conduct any business and the assessee has earned only ‘interest income’ which is considered as ‘income from other sources’. Since the expenses claimed are not allowable against any income other than ‘income

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, donation, insurance expenses and loan interest amounting to Rs. 5,82,162/-. The ld. Assessing Officer held that in absence of any explanation, the assessee did not conduct any business and the assessee has earned only ‘interest income’ which is considered as ‘income from other sources’. Since the expenses claimed are not allowable against any income other than ‘income

SAMIR NETWORKS LLP(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SAMIR STOCKHOLDINGS PVT. LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Samir Networks Llp The Acit (Converted From Samir Networks Vs Circle-4(1)91) Private Limited) Ahmedabad [Previously Known As Samil Stockholdings Pvt.Ltd.] 8, Abhishree Residency-2 B/H. Kantam Party Plot, Bopal Ahmedabad – 380 058 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaccs 6455 J (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/12/2024

condone the said delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 4. Referring to the above grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that, the solitary issue in the present appeal, was the treatment of the income returned by the assessee under the head “business income” as an “income from other sources” and thereafter denial

EKLAVYA EDUCATION FOUNDATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 315/Ahd/2020 (िनधार्रण वषर् / Assessment Year : 2016-17) बनाम/ Eklavya Education The Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Foundation Vs. Tax Core House, Off. C. G. Circle–1, Exemptions, Road, Nr. Parimal Garden, Ahmedabad Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – 380006 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaace7987R (अपीलाथीर् /Appellant) (प्र"यथीर् / Respondent) .. अपीलाथीर् ओर से /Appellant By : Shri M. K. Patel, A.R. प्र"यथीर् की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of 14/10/2022 Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of 31/10/2022 Pronouncement

condone the delay. 3. The assessee has come up in appeal mainly on following ground: “1. The learned Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have erred in law and on facts in wrongly applying section 11(6) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and not allowing our claim of depreciation

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARTEX APPARELS,, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, the said ground of appeal is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri T. S. Kapoorआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1450/Ahd/2017 With Cross Objection No.24/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13)

condone the delay and learned AR was directed to proceed with his arguments. 5. Regarding Merits of cross objections, the learned DR fairly agreed that the issue of disallowance of PF & ESIC was in fact against the assessee, therefore, same may be decided accordingly. ITA No. 1450/Ahd/17 with CO No.24/Ahd/19 [M/s. Artex Apparels] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 - 6. Learned

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

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

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the assessee. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of an 46[undertaking], any machinery or plant