THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

Section 250 permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may direct AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him before disposing of any appeal before him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 46A not withstanding anything contained in Rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) may direct production

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4),, VADODARA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA,, VADODARA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

Section 250 permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may direct AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him before disposing of any appeal before him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 46A not withstanding anything contained in Rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) may direct production

THE ITO, WARD-2(4),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

Section 250 permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may direct AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him before disposing of any appeal before him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 46A not withstanding anything contained in Rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) may direct production

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED, VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to do so? iii) The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of, or before, the hearing of appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Government of Gujarat undertaking engaged in the business of generation

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPN. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to do so? iii) The appellant craves leaves to add, modify, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of, or before, the hearing of appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Government of Gujarat undertaking engaged in the business of generation

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the upward adjustment

ACIT ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us.

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. ITA No. 2084/Ahd/2024 [ACIT vs. Elecon Engineering Company Ltd.] A.Y. 2020-21 - 2 – 2. Grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: “i) “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT

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

250(5) of the Act empower the ld. CIT-(Appeal) to admit any ground of appeal not specified in the memo of appeal if he is satisfied that the assessee has inadvertently failed to raise such ground of appeal. Undeniably, the ground was raised by the assessee before the learned CIT-A but the same has not been considered while

ATUL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2005-06 in appeal against order passed in rectification proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. 2. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through the chronology of events leading to the rectification order passed

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

250/- however, the assessee has not made any disallowance with regard to the expenses incurred relatable to earning of the exempt income. During the assessment proceedings details were called for with regard to the dividend income claimed as exempt by the assessee vide Notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act on 18.08.2015. As per the submission made

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

250/- however, the assessee has not made any disallowance with regard to the expenses incurred relatable to earning of the exempt income. During the assessment proceedings details were called for with regard to the dividend income claimed as exempt by the assessee vide Notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act on 18.08.2015. As per the submission made

THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. KALPARATRU POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

250/- however, the assessee has not made any disallowance with regard to the expenses incurred relatable to earning of the exempt income. During the assessment proceedings details were called for with regard to the dividend income claimed as exempt by the assessee vide Notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act on 18.08.2015. As per the submission made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2.1.1, VEJALPUR vs. MUNDRA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PVT. LTD., KUTCH

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmundra International Container Dcit, Vs. Terminal Private Limited, Circle 2(1)(1), Navinal, New Mundra Port, Post Ahmedabad Box No.8, Mundra, Kutch [Pan : Aadca 0917 C]

section 115-0 of the Act in excess of the applicable rate prescribed under the India-Mauritius DTAA.” ITA No. 1261/Ahd/2024 for AY 2017-18 (by Revenue) 4. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :- “1."Whether the CIT/A) is justified in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of intangible assets of Rs.2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VEJALPUR vs. MUNDRA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PVT. LTD. , KACHCHH

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmundra International Container Dcit, Vs. Terminal Private Limited, Circle 2(1)(1), Navinal, New Mundra Port, Post Ahmedabad Box No.8, Mundra, Kutch [Pan : Aadca 0917 C]

section 115-0 of the Act in excess of the applicable rate prescribed under the India-Mauritius DTAA.” ITA No. 1261/Ahd/2024 for AY 2017-18 (by Revenue) 4. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :- “1."Whether the CIT/A) is justified in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of intangible assets of Rs.2

MUNDRA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUNDRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmundra International Container Dcit, Vs. Terminal Private Limited, Circle 2(1)(1), Navinal, New Mundra Port, Post Ahmedabad Box No.8, Mundra, Kutch [Pan : Aadca 0917 C]

section 115-0 of the Act in excess of the applicable rate prescribed under the India-Mauritius DTAA.” ITA No. 1261/Ahd/2024 for AY 2017-18 (by Revenue) 4. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :- “1."Whether the CIT/A) is justified in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of depreciation of intangible assets of Rs.2

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,, BARODA

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

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

4 raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 7. Assessee’s Ground no. 5 and Revenue’s Ground No.2: Treatment of interest income and miscellaneous receipts as “income from other sources” as against the claim as “business income”. 7.1. Ld. Counsel submitted that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by decision of Co-ordinate Bench

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

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

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

4 raised by the Assessee is hereby allowed. 7. Assessee’s Ground no. 5 and Revenue’s Ground No.2: Treatment of interest income and miscellaneous receipts as “income from other sources” as against the claim as “business income”. 7.1. Ld. Counsel submitted that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by decision of Co-ordinate Bench

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

4 therefore we are not inclined to repeat the same for the sake of brevity and convenience. Hence, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on hand directly. The provisions of section 92B of the Act defines the parameters of what constitutes an international transaction. Although the ambit of international transaction was wide enough, yet due to judicial interpretation, certain classes