ANMOL HIMANSHU PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HIMANSHU RAOJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4) NOW PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1479/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anmol Himanshu Patel The Ito बनाम/ (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Ward-1(1)(4) V/S. Raojibhai Patel) Now Present Jurisdiction Bs/B-7, Indraprasth Complex The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1)(1) Nr. Inox Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqpp 6460 P (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10/06/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Anmol Himanshu Patel (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel) Vs. Dcit Asst.Year 2015-16. “1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant, The Order Passed By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed.

deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act was not covered in the limited scrutiny assessment in the case of the assessee. The AO did not take permission from the competent authority to cover the said issue or to convert the limited scrutiny into full scrutiny assessment, Anmol Himanshu Patel (Legal Heir of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel) vs. DCIT Asst.Year

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GPSAR HEALTHCARE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue on this issue for A

disallowance of speculation loss to Rs.6,00,802/- as against Rs.6,01,086/- made by the AO without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,63,45,750/- made

GPSAR HEALTH CARE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue on this issue for A

disallowance of speculation loss to Rs.6,00,802/- as against Rs.6,01,086/- made by the AO without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,63,45,750/- made

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act'.'" 9. And the relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:- 4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act'.'" 9. And the relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:- 4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act'.'" 9. And the relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:- 4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act'.'" 9. And the relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:- 4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act'.'" 9. And the relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:- 4. It can thus be seen that the Commissioner as a matter of fact found that the payments were not in the nature of current adjustment. There was movement of fund both ways on need basis

M/S. CHECKMATE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

deemed dividend declared in the hands of sharmila Mahurkar, the Director of the assessee company and the same has been offered for taxation for A.Y.2010-11. Based on the aforementioned facts & discussion as above, Rs.1.57 crores is added back to the income of the assessee company. 5. It is noticed in the auditor's report that the auditors had quantified

SMT. SHARMILA VIKRAM MAHURKAR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Memebr

deemed dividend declared in the hands of sharmila Mahurkar, the Director of the assessee company and the same has been offered for taxation for A.Y.2010-11. Based on the aforementioned facts & discussion as above, Rs.1.57 crores is added back to the income of the assessee company. 5. It is noticed in the auditor's report that the auditors had quantified

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं.It No. 2565/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15

deemed fit, we are of the view that disallowance of Rs.5,000/- if made in the present case will meet the ends of justice. We thus direct accordingly." 3.6. The submission of the appellant has been examined and noticed that appellant has sufficient interest free fund to make investment in the subsidiary company from which dividend

M/S. RY MIDAS ALLUMINIUM PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Ry Midas Aluminums Pvt. Ltd., Dy.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), B-408, 4Th Floor, No.117, Tribhuwan Industrial Estate, Vs Kathwada, Singarwa Road, Kathwada- Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, 382430, Ahmedabad. Panjarapole, Ambawadi, Pan :Aaecm 8066 F Ahmedabad. (Appllant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vinit Moondra, Ca Revenue By : Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2022

deemed dividend. In the present case, when the authorities found that the amount in question cannot be categorized as loan or advance, question of application of section 2(22)(e) would not arise. Before closing, we may clarify that the Tribunal in the impugned judgment has made a reference to a decision of the Ahmedabad Bench in the case

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. PETAL MOTOCON PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 483/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 I.T.O, Petal Motocon Pvt. Ltd., Ward-3(1)(2), Vs. 131, M H Mill Compound, Ahmedabad. Planet House, Khokhra Circle, Maninagar East, Ahmedabad-380008. Pan: Aafcp0078F

deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee merely because there are common shareholders in the payer and payee company. Reliance is placed on followings: " M/s. Precimetal Cast. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO-ITA 3499/Ahd/2015 (Annecure-“A”) " ACIT Vs. Leela Ship Reculcing Pvt. Ltd. – 1658/Ahd/2012 (Annexure “B”) " CIT Vs. Mahavir Inducto Pvt. Ltd.- Tax Appeal 892of 2016 (Annexure “C”) " ACIT

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

deem it appropriate to hear both the appeals together and dispose of them by this common order. ITA No.805 and 2744/Ahd/2017 3. First common issue involved in both years relates to disallowance of expenditure required to be made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. Brief facts

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

deem it appropriate to hear both the appeals together and dispose of them by this common order. ITA No.805 and 2744/Ahd/2017 3. First common issue involved in both years relates to disallowance of expenditure required to be made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. Brief facts

ANANG KUNJVIHARIBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1) (PREVIOUSLY DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalincome-Tax Officer, Anang Kunjviharibhai Shah, Vs. Ward 7(2)(1), 1, Friends Colony, Sm Road, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan: Acups 2559 J] (Previously Dcit, Cir. 1(1)(2)) (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act and accordingly made an addition of Rs. 25,00,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- “4.0 Determination & Decision: The statement of facts, order appealed against, grounds of appeal

MOHAN B AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1009/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Mohan B. Agrawal, D.C.I.T., 4Th Floor, Shoppers Plaza-Ii, Vs. Circle-4(2), Opp. B.S.N.L Telephone Exchange, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaopa4030C

deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profit of Rs. 1,71,13,533/-and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). 4. The assessee before learned CIT (A) Submitted that loan advances received from SDIPL is a running account and during the year he has accepted

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. SHRI KETAN REALITIES PVT. LTD, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance to the extent to accumulated profit as on 31.04.2010 and demanded tax thereon. Ketan Realities Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year 2011-2012 3 4. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: “…5.5 Apart from making out of the case that

M/S. PRECIMETAL CAST PVT. LTD.,,KADI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

deemed dividend.” In view of the findings as supra Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court wherein it is held that for the applicability of section 2(22)(e), it is required that the assessee company must be a shareholder in the company from whom the loan or advance has been taken and it does not provide that any shareholder