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

Disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation under MAT Provisions. 53.1 The assessee had incurred loss of Rs.16,99,67,977/- in the F.Y. 2008-09 which comprises of depreciation of Rs.8,33,09,277/- and loss of Rs.8,66,58,700/- which has been carried forward

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the adjustment made in the intimation under section 143(1) dated August 13, 2017 denying carry forward of loss of Rs

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

loss at Rs. 30,50,51,409/- after disallowing the carry forward loss of Rs. 65,39,53,132/-, on the ground

KHIMJI RAMDAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2) PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.500/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Khimji Ramdas India Pvt. Ltd., The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, City Square Godrej Ahmedabad, Vs. Garden City, Jagatpur, Present Jurisdiction Ahmedabad-382470 The Dcit, Pan : Aadck 6056 C Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Aatish Shah, Ar & Shri Anil N. Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Hishikes Hemant Patki, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 12.05.2023 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Ao Wd. 2(1)(2) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Impugned Order Which Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed & The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Have Similarly Cit(A) Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Impugned Order Vide His Order Passed Us.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Appeal Vide His Order Dtd.12-05-2023 Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052777862(1) Dtd. 12/05/2023. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Without Considering/Adjudicating

disallowance of loss of Rs.2719302 out of the total business loss eligible for carry forward as determined by the Hon'ble CIT(A) of Rs.35

THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHAMPALAL GOPIRAM AGARWAL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed

forward of the loss of Rs. 43,54,574/- only. 5. On appeal by the assessee the learned CIT-A deleted the disallowances made by the AO by observing as under: As regards ground no.2 it is relating to the disallowance of carried

M/S. ANIL DYECHEM INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowing the claim of carry forward of brought forward capital loss pertaining to AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08 of Rs.3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VEJALPUR vs. DIGITAL BIOTECH PVT. LTD., MEMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Digital Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, Vs A/9, Yashprabha Apartment, Ward-1(1)(3), Behind Janta Ice Cream, Ahmedabad Gurukul Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad -380052 Pan : Aaccd 1831 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar:

carry forward effect which would have a direct impact on future years. Benefit accrues to the assessee which is to the detriment of the revenue. It was, accordingly, urged that at the threshold, at the stage of notice under section 148 of the Act, the revenue should not be precluded from examining the issues. It was contended that the decision

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SURESH SHANTILAL JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

loss incurred in share trading business during the year and therefore, he submitted that the disallowance of carry forward of loss

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

carried on the NMCE platform were bogus. It is seen that the AO has been very selective in choosing the data for analysis because in reality the appellant had incurred profit in many transactions on NMCE platform that the appellant had incurred losses in good number of transactions on other platform which have not been doubted

FURNISH HOME,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1) OLD WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asessee is allowed, whereas, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

disallowed the claim of business loss amounting to Rs.2,00,985/- on the sole ground that the appellant had not filed the original return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO took the view that, in the absence of a valid return, the loss could not be accepted or carried forward

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(1),AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FURNISH HOME, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asessee is allowed, whereas, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), wherein detailed submissions supported by the books of accounts, statutory returns, confirmation and other documentary evidences were filed. A remand report of the AO was sought on the same by the Ld. CIT(A) after considering which, Ld. CIT(A) deleted

disallowed the claim of business loss amounting to Rs.2,00,985/- on the sole ground that the appellant had not filed the original return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO took the view that, in the absence of a valid return, the loss could not be accepted or carried forward

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

carried out to reduce interest saving over a period and also submitted tabular chart showing that appellant company has reduced its interest cost by making Swap Transactions. The appellant has a/so drawn attention to the fact that it has consistently followed same accounting policy to provide M2M losses/gain in subsequent financial years and even M2M gains have been offered

ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

carried out to reduce interest saving over a period and also submitted tabular chart showing that appellant company has reduced its interest cost by making Swap Transactions. The appellant has a/so drawn attention to the fact that it has consistently followed same accounting policy to provide M2M losses/gain in subsequent financial years and even M2M gains have been offered

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET( DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

carried out to reduce interest saving over a period and also submitted tabular chart showing that appellant company has reduced its interest cost by making Swap Transactions. The appellant has a/so drawn attention to the fact that it has consistently followed same accounting policy to provide M2M losses/gain in subsequent financial years and even M2M gains have been offered

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI PETRONET (DAHEJ) PORT PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 and CO of the assessee for AY 2013-14 are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income-Tax, 9Th Floor, Shikhar Building, Circle 1(1)(1), Nr. Mithakali Circle, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aaeca 5046 R Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Adani Petronet (Dahej) Port Income-Tax, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan: Aaeca 5046 R

carried out to reduce interest saving over a period and also submitted tabular chart showing that appellant company has reduced its interest cost by making Swap Transactions. The appellant has a/so drawn attention to the fact that it has consistently followed same accounting policy to provide M2M losses/gain in subsequent financial years and even M2M gains have been offered

SAGAR RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

carried out in connivance with BSE and registered brokers and keeping in view the fact that BSE has also not treated the transactions in the said companies as bogus or sham and having also not classified them as penny stock companies the impugned addition being based on mere surmises and conjectures, the ld. CIT(A) to have held the same

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

carried out in connivance with BSE and registered brokers and keeping in view the fact that BSE has also not treated the transactions in the said companies as bogus or sham and having also not classified them as penny stock companies the impugned addition being based on mere surmises and conjectures, the ld. CIT(A) to have held the same

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

carried out in connivance with BSE and registered brokers and keeping in view the fact that BSE has also not treated the transactions in the said companies as bogus or sham and having also not classified them as penny stock companies the impugned addition being based on mere surmises and conjectures, the ld. CIT(A) to have held the same

AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

carried out in connivance with BSE and registered brokers and keeping in view the fact that BSE has also not treated the transactions in the said companies as bogus or sham and having also not classified them as penny stock companies the impugned addition being based on mere surmises and conjectures, the ld. CIT(A) to have held the same

ELAHI CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2019-20 Elahi Corporation The Ito, Ward-3(3)(1) Zarf Dairy Juhpur Vs Ahmedabad. Sarkhej Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aagfe 7951 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Chirag Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

disallowance of carried forward loss of business amounting to Rs.6,25,487/-. 2 3. Heard both the parties, gone through