DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA -HUF, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 795/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Dharmenbhai M. Sutaria, Huf Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aafhd1653K

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : 8.2 From the above, it is transpired that it is necessary for the AO before initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act to form reasons

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : 7.2 From the above, it is transpired that it is necessary for the AO before initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act to form reasons

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STHAPATYA SHILP CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : 8.2 From the above, it is transpired that it is necessary for the AO before initiating the proceedings under section 147 of the Act to form reasons

TECHNODOT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

depreciation amounting to Rs.5,06,392/-.” 8. The assessee has raised the following Additional Grounds of Appeal: “5.0 The impugned assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.09.2013 is void-ab-initio and should be quashed since the statutory and mandatory approval was granted u/s 153D

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:- “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the order passed by learned AO u/s 154 of the Act for not allowing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) -1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation to 15%, whereas Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 16. On going through the facts of the instant case, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. 17. In the result, ground number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Assessment year

MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation to 15%, whereas Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 16. On going through the facts of the instant case, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. 17. In the result, ground number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation to 15%, whereas Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. 16. On going through the facts of the instant case, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) so as to call for any interference. 17. In the result, ground number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Assessment year

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

153C r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 392/Ahd/2023 [Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 2 – 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. That the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has erred

XCELRIS LABS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 43(1) of the I.T Act.\nIt is therefore prayed that impugned penalty order may please\nbe cancelled.\n5.\nThe learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly\nerred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action\nof the AO in imposing the impugned penalty with respect to the\naddition/disallowance of appellants legitimate claim of\ndepreciation

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

153C, thereafter proceed to assess or reassess the total income, where search is conducted u/s 132 which is further evidenced by amendment bythe Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 that inserted 4th proviso to section 153A read with explanation 1, the expression "relevant assessment year" that means an assessment year which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than

ANANTA PROCON PRIVATE LIMITED,UNJHA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE PATAN, PATAN

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.349/Ahd/2022 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.870/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Ananta Procon Private Limited, The A.C.I.T, C-146, Gunj Bazar, Vs. Circle Patan, Unjha-384170, Patan. Gujarat

153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19. ITA no.349 & 870/AHD/2022/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 2 2. The only effective issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT-A erred in not adjudicating the additional ground of appeal raised