DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

THE DCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. V. F. ARVIND BRANDS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013 & Cross Objection No. 204/Ahd/2013 (In Ita No.1904/Ahd/2013) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 D.C.I.T.(Osd), M/S. V. F. Arvind Brands Pvt. Circle-8, Vs. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Arvind Mills Premises, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan: Aaccv 2727 L (Applicant) (Responent) / Cross Objector

250/- Technical Knowhow 2. Vendor Relationship 24,05,52,000/- 25% 6,01,38,000/- Customer 18,15,75,000/- 25% 4,53,93,750/- 3. Relationship Total 72,45,84,000/- 25% 18,14,46,000/- However, the AO was not satisfied with the claim of the depreciation of the assessee in respect of the above assets

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. H V INFRATEX LTD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1034/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assistant Cit H.V. Infratex Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-2(1)(1) 202, Parth Milan Complex V/S. Ahmedabad Nr. Hotel Nest,Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabch 6794 C (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30 /01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2023, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 10/12/2018 Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Asstt. Cit Vs. H.V. Infratex Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17

Section 250(4) of the Act and directed the AO to examine the documents on 24.02.2020. A remand report was submitted by the AO on 19.07.2023 (after 3 years), verifying the genuineness of most expenses. 4. The AO’s remand report accepted certain expenses such as Bank charges, interest, labor expenses, depreciation

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

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 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

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

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

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

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