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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

46A of the Income-tax\nRules, 1962. The short controversy before us, therefore, is twofold first,\nwhether the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation under section

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

46A of the Income-tax\nRules, 1962. The short controversy before us, therefore, is twofold first,\nwhether the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation under section

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

46A of the Income-tax\nRules, 1962. The short controversy before us, therefore, is twofold first,\nwhether the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation under section

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. CHIRIPAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year : 2006-07 Jcit (Osd)Circle-1(1)(2) Chiripal Industries Ld. Ahmedabad. Survey No.199/200/1 & 200/1 & 2 Vs. Saijpur Gopalpur Pirana Road Piplej, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaacc 8513 B

depreciation at the rate of 80% can be claimed. According to the finding of the AO, no such evidence was produced. Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules provides a mechanism for an assessee for producing additional evidence before the ld.CIT(A). This rule read as under: 8 “46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. HEUBACH COLOUR PVT. LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

depreciation. The same was processed by Revenue under Section 10 AY:2009-10 AY:2010-11 Heubach Colour Private Limited 143(1). The case was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment. Notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by AO to the assessee, and were claimed by AO to have been duly served on the assessee

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. HEUBACH COLOUR PVT. LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

depreciation. The same was processed by Revenue under Section 10 AY:2009-10 AY:2010-11 Heubach Colour Private Limited 143(1). The case was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment. Notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by AO to the assessee, and were claimed by AO to have been duly served on the assessee

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,,WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KANAK CASTOR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedasst.Year : 2008-09

46A without appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment proceeding ample opportunities were given the Assessing Officer to produce the evidences and even during remand proceedings, the A.O. did not find the additional evidences submitted by the assessee as convincing and conclusive. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend alter any ground or add a new ground which

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

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 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

section 68 of the Act for unexplained capital, Rs.18,93,533/- for disallowance of interest on capital, and Rs.43,62,678/- for 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

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

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. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

section 36(2) of the Act. Further assessee filed before Ld CIT [A], Ledger of the debtors from the origin, whose bed debt is claimed as fresh evidences as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which can be verified the genuineness of the transaction. 17. We have perused the materials on record and the submissions of rival

SMT. RITABEN SAKETKUMAR TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

section 36(2) of the Act. Further assessee filed before Ld CIT [A], Ledger of the debtors from the origin, whose bed debt is claimed as fresh evidences as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which can be verified the genuineness of the transaction. 17. We have perused the materials on record and the submissions of rival

THE ITO WARD-5(3)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2)), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA, AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

section 36(2) of the Act. Further assessee filed before Ld CIT [A], Ledger of the debtors from the origin, whose bed debt is claimed as fresh evidences as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which can be verified the genuineness of the transaction. 17. We have perused the materials on record and the submissions of rival

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

section 36(2) of the Act. Further assessee filed before Ld CIT [A], Ledger of the debtors from the origin, whose bed debt is claimed as fresh evidences as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which can be verified the genuineness of the transaction. 17. We have perused the materials on record and the submissions of rival

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

section 36(2) of the Act. Further assessee filed before Ld CIT [A], Ledger of the debtors from the origin, whose bed debt is claimed as fresh evidences as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which can be verified the genuineness of the transaction. 17. We have perused the materials on record and the submissions of rival

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

section 36(2) of the Act. Further assessee filed before Ld CIT [A], Ledger of the debtors from the origin, whose bed debt is claimed as fresh evidences as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which can be verified the genuineness of the transaction. 17. We have perused the materials on record and the submissions of rival

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

depreciation of plant and machinery used by Sun Pharma Industries & M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim. III(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in deleting, the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) on apportionment of selling and distribution expenses of Rs.182,57,00,000/- incurred by the working