ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

disallowance holding (i)that the impugned claim did not satisfy the provisions of section 10(2)(s) of the 1922 Act because it was not interest paid on borrowed capital, and (ii) that it did not fall within the scope of section 10(2)(xv

LALITA RAMNIRANJAN AGARWAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member\nITA No. 662/Ahd/2023\nAssessment Year 2015-16\nLalita Ramniranjan Agarwal,\nB-201, Sandal Wood\nResidency, Urmi Char Rasta\nProductivity Road,\nVadodara-390020\nPAN: AECPA0173J\n(Appellant)\nThe ITO,\nWard-1(2)(4),\nVadodara\nVs\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, A.R.\nRevenue by: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 24-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 28-02-2025\nORD

xv) Navneet Agarwal Vs. ITO [2018] 97 taxmann.com 76 (Kolkata - Trib.)\n6. Per contra, Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the\norder passed by the Lower Authorities and pleaded to uphold the\nadditions made by the Assessing Officer.\n7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the\nmaterials available on record including Paper Book filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) -1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed GST late filing fee of ₹6,63,133/-. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the aforesaid expenditures are not for violation of any law and are only compensatory in nature and hence the same are allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act (“Act”). 4. The Department

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed GST late filing fee of ₹6,63,133/-. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the aforesaid expenditures are not for violation of any law and are only compensatory in nature and hence the same are allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act (“Act”). 4. The Department

MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed GST late filing fee of ₹6,63,133/-. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the aforesaid expenditures are not for violation of any law and are only compensatory in nature and hence the same are allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act (“Act”). 4. The Department

KISHORI PANKAJ AGARWAL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. ITA No. 623/Ahd/2023 [Kishori Pankaj Agarwal vs. ITO] A.Y. 2015-16 - 2 – 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well

M/S. DRAIPL-MSKEL(JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

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

XV, Ahmedabad arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008- 09. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, for the sake of convenience the same are disposed of by this common order. I.T.A

M/S. DRAIPAL-MSKEL (JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

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

XV, Ahmedabad arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008- 09. Since common issue is involved in both the appeals, for the sake of convenience the same are disposed of by this common order. I.T.A

M/S. N.C.C.-M.S.K.E.L.(JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE-9(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs.6,86,60,491/- u/s.80IA of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income

THE ITO, WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NCC-MSKEL(JV), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for A

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs.6,86,60,491/- u/s.80IA of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income