DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

natural justice. 2. The NFAC erred in disallowing the appellant's claim for alleged bogus purchases without considering that the Ld. AO had accepted

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

natural justice. 2. The NFAC erred in disallowing the appellant's claim for alleged bogus purchases without considering that the Ld. AO had accepted

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance of claim of depreciation of Rs.5,68,50,000/- and Rs.9,12,638/- u/s.14A of the Act made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance of claim of depreciation of Rs.5,68,50,000/- and Rs.9,12,638/- u/s.14A of the Act made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance of claim of depreciation of Rs.5,68,50,000/- and Rs.9,12,638/- u/s.14A of the Act made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance of claim of depreciation of Rs.5,68,50,000/- and Rs.9,12,638/- u/s.14A of the Act made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

disallowance of claim of depreciation of Rs.5,68,50,000/- and Rs.9,12,638/- u/s.14A of the Act made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance was made to the tune of Rs.4,62,50,000/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act violating the principle of natural justice

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance was made to the tune of Rs.4,62,50,000/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act violating the principle of natural justice

KAUSHIK NARSINHBHAI RAGVANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2143 & 2144/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14

disallowance/ addition made by Ld AO and upheld by the CIT(A) may please be deleted in the interest of natural justice

KAUSHIK NARSINHBHAI RAGVANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2143 & 2144/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14

disallowance/ addition made by Ld AO and upheld by the CIT(A) may please be deleted in the interest of natural justice

IRM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

disallowance under section 14A and addition of unexplained income. Against the said additions, as stated in the form 35 under the statement of facts, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which was allowed, and the additions were deleted. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act dated

SHITAL VIPULKUMAR DHOLAKIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

natural justice. 2.5 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing

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

natural justice. Ground no.4 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 17. As regards to ground no.5 regarding confirming the allowance of Rs.1,37,30,530/- (1/5th of Rs.6,86,52,649/-) instead of Rs.4,77,96,977/- under Section 35DDA as claimed by the assessee in respect of terminal benefit under Section 37 as revenue

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

natural justice. Ground no.4 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 17. As regards to ground no.5 regarding confirming the allowance of Rs.1,37,30,530/- (1/5th of Rs.6,86,52,649/-) instead of Rs.4,77,96,977/- under Section 35DDA as claimed by the assessee in respect of terminal benefit under Section 37 as revenue

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 10. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C of the Act. 11. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 10. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C of the Act. 11. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action

UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed for AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was arbitrary, without any logical or scientific basis, and contrary to the principles of natural justice

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, RACE COURSE, VADODARA vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL PANCHMAHAL

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed for AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was arbitrary, without any logical or scientific basis, and contrary to the principles of natural justice