THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LANDMARK CARS (EAST) PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2419/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

260 000631 Cheque Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited ITA No.2419/Ahd/2016 [DCIT vs. M/s. Landmark Cars (East) Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2013-14 - 8 - KVB 10 270,540 Cheque 000632 29/03/2013 Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited KVB 11 24,507,328 Cheque 000111 31/03/2013 DPS - Chennai 12 5,437,927 Cheque KVB 000117 31/03/2013 DFS- Chennai 13 42,129 ICICI — 12/04/2013 E-Payment Incentive

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

260/- for consulting charges and Rs.6,31,578/- for supervision charges). The assessee was required to deduct TDS on the said charges paid to the non-residents as per provision of Section 195 of the Act as with the prima facie view of the Learned AO, letter dated 26.12.2013 was issued to the assessee to explain as to ITA Nos.1247

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

260/- for consulting charges and Rs.6,31,578/- for supervision charges). The assessee was required to deduct TDS on the said charges paid to the non-residents as per provision of Section 195 of the Act as with the prima facie view of the Learned AO, letter dated 26.12.2013 was issued to the assessee to explain as to ITA Nos.1247

GUJARAT LIQUI PHARMACAPS PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

depreciation amounting to Rs.17,33,148/-. Gujarat Liqui Pharmacaps Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2011-12 2. (i). The learned CIT( Appeals) has erred in confirming partly the action of the learned Assessing Officer by retaining the disallowance of the sum of Rs. 1,39,141 (comprising of Rs.75,141 in respect of watering vacuum pump and Rs.64,000/- representing

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation of plant and machinery used by Sun Pharma Industries & Sun Pharma Sikkim. 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IE in respect of receipt of interest of Rs.29,49.60,969/- on delayed payments on sales, without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

depreciation of plant and machinery used by Sun Pharma Industries & Sun Pharma Sikkim. 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IE in respect of receipt of interest of Rs.29,49.60,969/- on delayed payments on sales, without appreciating the facts and reasons mentioned

THE ACIT- CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. L.K. INDIA PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No.104/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 2 ACIT vs. M/s. L.K. India Pvt. Ltd. 2. The revenue has raised following ground of appeal:- “1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

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 HARSIDDHI CO.OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,MAHISAGAR vs. THE ITO,, LUNAWAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1862/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Harsiddhi Co-Op. Credit Ito, Lunawada. Society Ltd., Tower Road Vs At & O : Santrampur 389 260 Dist: Mahisagar, Gujarat Pan : Aabat 3395 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri T.C.Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26/03/2019

260/- 5. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, Delhi High Court and Bombay High Courts are unanimous while construing the expression “and also” employed in section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The relevant part of section 147 reads as under: 147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

SHRI SHIVAJIRAO R.CHAVAN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

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) : 15. It is but evident from a bare perusal of the provision that power u/s 147 of the Act to assess/ reassess an assessee can be exercised

THE ITO, WARD-13(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SHIVAJIRAO R.CHAVAN,, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Roy

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) : 15. It is but evident from a bare perusal of the provision that power u/s 147 of the Act to assess/ reassess an assessee can be exercised

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

260/- . The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 1,87,70,901/- u/s 80IA(4) of the 1961 Act. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The AO has observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Construction

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

260/- . The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 1,87,70,901/- u/s 80IA(4) of the 1961 Act. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The AO has observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Construction

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGG. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

260/- . The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 1,87,70,901/- u/s 80IA(4) of the 1961 Act. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The AO has observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Construction

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

260/- . The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 1,87,70,901/- u/s 80IA(4) of the 1961 Act. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The AO has observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Construction

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

260/- . The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 1,87,70,901/- u/s 80IA(4) of the 1961 Act. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The AO has observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Construction

GOPINATH BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-3

260/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 12.09.013 and was served upon the assessee. Notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 12.09.2013 and 23.09.2014. In response to the same notices, the Ld. AR of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings

SHRI NIKUL J. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT, A'BAD-IV,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Nikul J. Patel, The Commissioner Of 4A, Ketan Society, Vs Income-Tax, Nr. Sardar Patel Colony, Ahmedabad-Iv, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380013 Ahmedabad Pan : Ahkpp 5769 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-Iv, Ahmedabad (“Cit” In Short) Dated 21.02.2014 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short).

260/-. The records of the said assessment came to be examined by the learned CIT and, on such examination, he was of the view that the Shri Nikul J Patel Vs. CIT AY : 2009-10 2 assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act suffered from the following errors which were prejudicial