DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

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

reassessment orders passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. Since common issue of challenging the reopening of assessment, disallowance

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

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

reassessment orders passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. Since common issue of challenging the reopening of assessment, disallowance

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

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

reassessment orders passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. Since common issue of challenging the reopening of assessment, disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

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

reassessment orders passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. Since common issue of challenging the reopening of assessment, disallowance

ROMABEN KEYUR THAKORE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ANANDIBEN JITENDRABHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer By Observing As Follows:

reassessment was completed by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act at Rs.79,07,696/- 3. Aggrieved against

VINOD CHIMANLAL MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Vinod Chimanlal Modi The Dcit, Cir.1(2) B-1/2, L.R. Apartments Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Police Commissioner’S Office Shahibaug Ahmedabad. Pan : Agqpm 1294 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 31.12.2018 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-6/221/18-19 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee As Follows:

reassessment was completed disallowing donation made to Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation, Kolkatta by the assessee as bogus

JITENDRA RAJKUMAR AGARWAL (PROPRIETOR OF SHRI SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISE),AHMEDABAD vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, IT DEPARTMENT JURIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

reassessment and the entire disallowance before the CIT(A). The assessee contended that reopening under section 147 was bad in law. The assessee

AVANI PETROCHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT(CENTRAL), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

disallowance u/s. 14A, thereby rendering the reassessment order erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Hence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA vs. THE BHARUCH DIST. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LIMITED, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

reassessed at Rs. 18,44,82,886/- after disallowing the excess deduction of Rs. 1,88,40,841/-. Additionally, penalty

RAMESHKUMAR G. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5) PRESENT JURISDICTION ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148; (ii)\naddition of Rs.91,71,722/- as unexplained income under section 69A; and\n(iii) disallowance

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO. LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, the captioned appeals are :

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

reassessment order was passed on 23.01.2014 making the following Disallowances: (i) Replacement of parts of machines treated as capital expenditure

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, the captioned appeals are :

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

reassessment order was passed on 23.01.2014 making the following Disallowances: (i) Replacement of parts of machines treated as capital expenditure

GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the captioned appeals are :

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

reassessment order was passed on 23.01.2014 making the following Disallowances: (i) Replacement of parts of machines treated as capital expenditure

GAYATRI CREATIVES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2) NOW CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2010-11

reassessment proceedings thereby stating that the assessee has followed work-in- progress method of accounting and already paid taxes accordingly. The CIT(A) has totally ignored this fact and has passed the order without giving any reasons to that effect. Hence, on merit also the assessee proves that the disallowance

MAYANKKUMAR BABULAL SAINI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, PALANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2011-12 Mayankumar Babulal Saini Ito, Ward-2 B/204, Manibhadra Enclava Vs Palanpur. Nr.Rajasthan Hospital Shahibaug Ahmedabad 380004. Pan : Cpops 2747 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orderdated 25.5.2019Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Of Appeal & Additional Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

reassessment proceedings, he had only estimated the income and made disallowance therein. Therefore, the entire reopening of the assessment is bad in law and relied

INNOVATE DERIVATIVES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

reassessment by holding that the sale of LHSL script was identified to provide accommodation entry, therefore disallowed the entire loss

SHREE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,VADODARA vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY. CIT, CICLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment being bad in law, illegal and non-est.. 2.00 Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80P of the Act amounting

SHREE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,VADODARA vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment being bad in law, illegal and non-est.. 2.00 Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80P of the Act amounting