N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

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

Depreciation on Akola Plant 1,27,09,375 Excess Remuneration paid 7,64,000 Loss on F&O 4,20,57,547 Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) 71,060 Interest Capitalization of WIP 4,88,000 Prior Period Income 1,05,89,848 Interest free advances 4,24,000 Interest free advances to Shri Nilesh Keshavlal Patel

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

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

Depreciation on Akola Plant 1,27,09,375 Excess Remuneration paid 7,64,000 Loss on F&O 4,20,57,547 Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) 71,060 Interest Capitalization of WIP 4,88,000 Prior Period Income 1,05,89,848 Interest free advances 4,24,000 Interest free advances to Shri Nilesh Keshavlal Patel

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. APPLITECH SOLUTION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation and delete the disallowance of Rs.2,21,51,688/-.” 7. The learned DR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings in assessee’s case for AY 2000-01, a survey under Section 133A

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80IA(10) of the Act for Rs. 1,25,288/- after invoking the provision of section 80IE(6) of the Act. 16. At the outset we note that the learned AR for the assessee before us submitted that he has been instructed by the assessee not to press the impugned ground of appeal due to smallness of amount involved

SHREE ALEKH,BHAVNAGAR vs. PCIT AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

depreciation was justly claimed. 4. The Id. PCIT has further erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the view taken by the AO is a possible view and hence the proceedings are illegal and bad in law. 5. The Id. PCIT has further erred in law in not coming to any concrete conclusion and without conducting

SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA R PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

133A of the Act carried at the premises of the assessee.As result of survey, there was an email found from the computer of 1 of the director of the assessee company namely Shri Manish Shah which was written to another director namely Shri Praveen Patel. In the said email, there were among other documents, two-piece of papers bearing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

133A of the Act carried at the premises of the assessee.As result of survey, there was an email found from the computer of 1 of the director of the assessee company namely Shri Manish Shah which was written to another director namely Shri Praveen Patel. In the said email, there were among other documents, two-piece of papers bearing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

133A of the Act carried at the premises of the assessee.As result of survey, there was an email found from the computer of 1 of the director of the assessee company namely Shri Manish Shah which was written to another director namely Shri Praveen Patel. In the said email, there were among other documents, two-piece of papers bearing

ANNAPURNA POLYMERS PVT. LTD. (IN VOL. LIQUIDATION),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Annapurna Polymers P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-1(2) (In Voluntary Liquidation) Vs Ahmedabad. 103, Aakanksha, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aabca 8452 A (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

depreciation on the remaining plant & machinery for the same reason that it was of scrap and not put to use by the assessee. 5. Brief facts relating to the case are that a survey under section 133A

M/S. ATRI DEVELOPERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

section 133A of the Act was carried out at A-54, Amrapali Shopping Centre, S.P. Ring Road, Bopal, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, statement of the partner of the assessee firm, Shri Chaturbhai A. Patel was recorded, in which he surrendered Rs. 9.05 crores as “on-money” i.e. additional income received. However, during assessment proceedings the AO noted that

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ATRI DEVELOPERS,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

section 133A of the Act was carried out at A-54, Amrapali Shopping Centre, S.P. Ring Road, Bopal, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, statement of the partner of the assessee firm, Shri Chaturbhai A. Patel was recorded, in which he surrendered Rs. 9.05 crores as “on-money” i.e. additional income received. However, during assessment proceedings the AO noted that

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

133A was conducted in the case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Parul University on 31/01/2017. 2. During the survey, various incrimination documents were found along with data in the form of MS Excel files and impounded which show that the trustees of Parul Group were involved in the practice of receiving back the portion of salary paid

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

133A was conducted in the case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Parul University on 31/01/2017. 2. During the survey, various incrimination documents were found along with data in the form of MS Excel files and impounded which show that the trustees of Parul Group were involved in the practice of receiving back the portion of salary paid

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

133A was conducted in the case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Parul University on 31/01/2017. 2. During the survey, various incrimination documents were found along with data in the form of MS Excel files and impounded which show that the trustees of Parul Group were involved in the practice of receiving back the portion of salary paid

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

133A was conducted in the case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Parul University on 31/01/2017. 2. During the survey, various incrimination documents were found along with data in the form of MS Excel files and impounded which show that the trustees of Parul Group were involved in the practice of receiving back the portion of salary paid

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

133A was conducted in the case of Parul Arogya Seva Mandal Trust and Parul University on 31/01/2017. 2. During the survey, various incrimination documents were found along with data in the form of MS Excel files and impounded which show that the trustees of Parul Group were involved in the practice of receiving back the portion of salary paid

TAHOORA PROTEINS,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 NOW WARD-1, GODHRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 1613/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Tahoora Proteins vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of Manufacturing and Trading of Tuver

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

133A of the Act, and that the modus operandi adopted by NK Proteins and its clients was explained by him. The relevant para is para 7.6 of the order. The same is summarized as under:- I) NK Proteins is Member Broker on NSEL. II) NK Inds. being client of NK Proteins executes T+3 contract on the electronic platform