BAKERI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee on this ground are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

274 read with section 271(1)(c) is unjust, unreasonable and therefore, bad in law. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. Total Tax Effect Rs. 24,03,04,786/-” 3. Bakeri Projects Private

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

274"], "issues": "The appeals concern disallowances under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, notional interest on advances, cost of land, site development expenses, deduction under section 80GGB, depreciation

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

depreciation relying upon the\nadditional evidences/documents which were not submitted by the assessee\nbefore the AO dehorse provisions of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules and without calling\nremand report.\n9.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal & The Case Was Set-Aside Vide Order Dated 01.08.2014 In Ita No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 & Accordingly Assessment Was Finalized U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act & The Total Loss Was Determined At (-) Rs.22,47,26,293/- After Making Following Additions/Disallowances:

depreciation could not give rise to any question of concealment of income Whether Tribunal was right in so holding - Held, yes [Para 13] [In favour of assessee]” 7.2. Further, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar -Vs- Jamnagar District Co Operative Bank Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 365 of 2015 dated

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

depreciation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Rajendra Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 2177/AHD/2018 wherein under identical facts relief was allowed to the assessee. 56. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal

BHIKHABHAI AMBALAL PATEL,,KALOL vs. ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2008-09

depreciation, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as well as unexplained cash deposit and undisclosed interest income. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed in both the assessment years by the Assessing Officer. 5. Being aggrieved by the penalty orders in both these years, the assessees filed appeals before

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

depreciation relying upon the\nadditional evidences/documents which were not submitted by the assessee\nbefore the AO dehorse provisions of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules and without calling\nremand report.\n9.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nhas erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made

MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 641/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1311/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Mobile Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., C/O. Ambalal M. Shah & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Chartered Accountants, Baroda. 108, Bell-E-Vista Complex, Race Course Chakli Circle, Vadodara-390007. Pan: Aaccm2659J

depreciation of Rs. 2,16,027.00 only. The AO in the assessment initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing notice under section 274

MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PVE. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 641/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1311/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Mobile Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., C/O. Ambalal M. Shah & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Chartered Accountants, Baroda. 108, Bell-E-Vista Complex, Race Course Chakli Circle, Vadodara-390007. Pan: Aaccm2659J

depreciation of Rs. 2,16,027.00 only. The AO in the assessment initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing notice under section 274

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10

depreciation on closed unit Rs.86,673/- 4. Penalty proceedings were initiated by issuing notice under Section 274 read with Section

AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

depreciation amounting to Rs.2,99,294/- and addition on account of short credit amounting to Rs.1,83,265/-. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated vide issuance of notice under Section 274

SWAMINARAYAN CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1411/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Acit बना 1, Ashok Chambers Circle-3(1) Opp. Pathak Gate Police Station Ahmedabad म/ Madanzampa Road V/S. Vadodara 390 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaas 1932 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) …… "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Kanabar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 9/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 08/07/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 27/02/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2010-11

depreciation only and therefore the same cannot be treated as concealment for the present proceeding initiated by you w/s 271(1)(c). Under the circumstances requested to the drop the penal proceeding us 271(1)(c) and do not create unnecessary demand particularly when the bank is under liquidation and the principle outstanding tax is also not recoverable

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ADD./JT. DCIT/ITO NATONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2017-18 Schneider Electric Infrastructure D.C.I.T, Limited, Vs Circle-2(1)(1), Milestone 87, Vadodara Halol Vadodara. Highway, Village Kotambi, Po Jaroad, Vadodara-391510 Pan : Aapcs 6078 Q

274 r.w.s. 270A & 271AA of the Act mechanically on the additions made.” 3. The 1st and 2nd issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal are general in nature. Therefore, the same don’t require any separate adjudication. Thus, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 4. The 3rd issue raised by the assessee is that

LOXIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the captioned appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

274 (SC). Learned counsel further supported his case by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Ace Software Exports Ltd. Tax Appeal No. 831 of 2012 judgment dated 01.03.2013 and Pr.CIT vs. Infosys BPO Ltd. [2021] 123 taxmann.com 216 (Karnataka). ITA No. 1564/Ahd/18 [Loxim Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT

THE ITO, WARD 8(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VARIJ BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed; whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memeber & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-8(4) 2, Sejal House Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Aaccv5656Q Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-8(4) Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs 2, Sejal House Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Nupur Shah, Ar & Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshkumar L. Sadhu, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Cross Appeals One Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1915/Ahd/2013 & Another Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.2008/Ahd/2013 Against Order Dated 9.5.2013 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad [In Short Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Relating To The Assessment Year 2008-09. Ita No.1915 & 2008/Ahd/2013 2 2. Original Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act Of Rs.92,00,000/- On Account Of Share Application Money Received In Cash.

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). …. ….. …… [Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. Section 148. Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, and subject to the provisions of section 148A, the Assessing Officer

VARIJ BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,. WARD-8(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed; whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Memeber & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-8(4) 2, Sejal House Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Aaccv5656Q Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-8(4) Varij Builders P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs 2, Sejal House Nr. Maninagar Railway Station Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Nupur Shah, Ar & Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshkumar L. Sadhu, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Are Cross Appeals One Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1915/Ahd/2013 & Another Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.2008/Ahd/2013 Against Order Dated 9.5.2013 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad [In Short Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)”] Relating To The Assessment Year 2008-09. Ita No.1915 & 2008/Ahd/2013 2 2. Original Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act Of Rs.92,00,000/- On Account Of Share Application Money Received In Cash.

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). …. ….. …… [Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. Section 148. Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, and subject to the provisions of section 148A, the Assessing Officer

MADHU SILICA PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal being ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 701 & 702/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2014-15

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20- 10-2016 has not categorically mentioned under which limb of section 271(1)(C) the penalty was imposed. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 16,08,70,789/- u/s 32AC while filing the return of income. One of the items

MADHU SILICA PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal being ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 701 & 702/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2014-15

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20- 10-2016 has not categorically mentioned under which limb of section 271(1)(C) the penalty was imposed. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 16,08,70,789/- u/s 32AC while filing the return of income. One of the items

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO. LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, the captioned appeals are :

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

depreciation on Managing Director’s residence. (for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) & ITA Nos. 472/Ahd/2013 & Ors. (Gujarat Industrial Power Co. Ltd. ) - 6 - Thus, the Ld Assessing Officer determined the total income as ‘Nil’ under normal computation and book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act of Rs. 1,21,24,94,039/- and demanded the tax of Rs.17,21,980/- which