SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

9,78,085/- whereas the amount as per the invoice furnished by the assessee stands at ₹ 8,78198/- which also creates doubt on the value at which the depreciation is to be claimed. Accordingly we are of the view that the impugned issue needs to be verified at the level of the AO. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

9,78,085/- whereas the amount as per the invoice furnished by the assessee stands at ₹ 8,78198/- which also creates doubt on the value at which the depreciation is to be claimed. Accordingly we are of the view that the impugned issue needs to be verified at the level of the AO. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

9,78,085/- whereas the amount as per the invoice furnished by the assessee stands at ₹ 8,78198/- which also creates doubt on the value at which the depreciation is to be claimed. Accordingly we are of the view that the impugned issue needs to be verified at the level of the AO. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 1 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. KHYATI CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby allowed

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

depreciation in accordance with provisions of section 32(1)(ii) r.w.s. Rule 5(1) and Appendix 1 and section 32(1)(iia) at the time of giving appeal effect.” 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40A(2) of the Act. ITA Nos. 1583&1585/Ahd/2024 Crest Speciality Resins Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (Now DCIT) Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2016-17 - 3– Depreciation on electrical installation 9) The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in confirming (he action of the learned AO in making disallowance of the depreciation of Rs, 5,54.435/- claimed

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assesse and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation amounting to Rs.2,36,83,086/-. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance for provisions of Festival allowance, Miscellaneous expenses, PF/FPF not paid within due dates, PF damages, Selling expenses, Salary/Wages and other expenses of Packart Press Unit. The Assessing Officer also made disallowance under Section 40A(9

THE DCIT, BARODA CIRCLE-1,, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assesse and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation amounting to Rs.2,36,83,086/-. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance for provisions of Festival allowance, Miscellaneous expenses, PF/FPF not paid within due dates, PF damages, Selling expenses, Salary/Wages and other expenses of Packart Press Unit. The Assessing Officer also made disallowance under Section 40A(9

M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD.,,DEESA vs. THE JT.CIT, B.K.RANGE,, PALANPUR

In the result, ground number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

depreciation on said car even though it was bought by company in name of its Director. 7.1 However, in the instant facts, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has made a specific observation that firstly, the assets (vehicles) have not been acquired out of funds of the assessee company, secondly, the assets have been purchased in the names of Shri Bharat Agarwal, Dinesh

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

40A(2)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,35,19,424/- and disallowance of sales/business/products promotion expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.28,24,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance of commission paid to non-resident amounting to Rs.67,39,814/- and disallowance of expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.95

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

40A(2)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,35,19,424/- and disallowance of sales/business/products promotion expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.28,24,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer further made disallowance of commission paid to non-resident amounting to Rs.67,39,814/- and disallowance of expenses under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.95

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

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

depreciation claim is reduced against this amount. Hence, the present issue is not fit case under the criteria as envisaged u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. PCIT erred in invoking the powers u/s. 263 of the Act on this issue. ITA No. 194/Ahd/2022 [ M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 3 – 5 Ground

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1),AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under\nconsideration

40A(2)(b) of the Act, with respect to similar\ncommission expenses. Copy of the order passed by the ITAT has been placed\non record before us.\n\n15. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that even for A.Y. 2014-\n15 the ITAT Ahmedabad in assessee's own case in ITA No. 2917/Ahd/2017\nvide order dated 23.02.2022 deleted similar

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

40A(9) of the Act?” AO's Remark 1. Ground no. 2.of the appeal before tribunal is identical with grounds a to c for AY 2003-04 and the appeal before the Supreme Court is yet to be finalized. Hence 158A is applicable. 2. Ground no.5, 5.1 & 6 of the appeal before the tribunal is identical with grounds

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

40A(9) of the Act?” AO's Remark 1. Ground no. 2.of the appeal before tribunal is identical with grounds a to c for AY 2003-04 and the appeal before the Supreme Court is yet to be finalized. Hence 158A is applicable. 2. Ground no.5, 5.1 & 6 of the appeal before the tribunal is identical with grounds

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

40A(9) of the Act?” AO's Remark 1. Ground no. 2.of the appeal before tribunal is identical with grounds a to c for AY 2003-04 and the appeal before the Supreme Court is yet to be finalized. Hence 158A is applicable. 2. Ground no.5, 5.1 & 6 of the appeal before the tribunal is identical with grounds

NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,,ANAND vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

40A(9) of the Act?” AO's Remark 1. Ground no. 2.of the appeal before tribunal is identical with grounds a to c for AY 2003-04 and the appeal before the Supreme Court is yet to be finalized. Hence 158A is applicable. 2. Ground no.5, 5.1 & 6 of the appeal before the tribunal is identical with grounds

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. SHIV REFOILS AND CAKES, CHANSAMA, PATAN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1672/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Acit Shiv Refoils & Cakes बनाम/ Patan Circle, Plot No.2 Gidc Estate V/S. Patan – 384 265 Chanasma, Patan

depreciation claimed on assets. The AO also made an addition of Rs.34,50,000/- on account of unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act and disallowed Rs.4,14,000/- as interest paid on these loans. 2.1. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the above additions, allowing relief

RAMANLAL JIVRAJBHAI PATEL,THANE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel The Ito B-2003, Shreeji Heights Vs Ward-1 (Palm Beach Road, Navi Mumbai – Himatnagar Thane, Nerul Node –Iii So) Sector 46A, Plot No.1, 1A, 1B, 1C Thane 400 706 Maharashtra Pan: Abcpp 1551 G .. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Patel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20/02/2024 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ld. Cit(A)'] In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ao’] Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Facts Of The Case: Ramanlal Jivrajbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

9. As per clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 80C of the Act, insurance premium paid in respect of a child is allowed as deduction irrespective of the child being dependent or independent, minor or major, married or unmarried. For the sake of clarity, we produce the relevant part of the same – (4) The persons referred