RANDHEJA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश 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, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer invoking Section 80AC of the Act, noting that in terms of the said section the claim would have been allowable to the assessee even if the same is claimed in a belated or revised return, however, since the assessee having not filed a valid return of income in the instant case, such deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) (1) AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD vs. INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

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

Disallowance of Rs.46,07,317/- under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act for payments made to non-residents without deducting tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the above additions and granted relief to the assessee. The Revenue

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTRA ACTION SOFTWARE,, AHMEDABAD

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee for the deduction under Section 10A of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,98,00,647/- and added the same to the total income. 9. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Learned CIT(A). 10. The assessee before the Learned CIT(A) submitted that the provisions of Section 10A of the Act does

NAYAB INTERNATIONAL,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3),, VADODARA

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

5 of 9 Asstt. Year 2009-10 consider the case of the assessee for deductions under section 80J(1) on the merits.” 8.3 It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has filed the report in the prescribed form before the completion of the assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Therefore we are of the view that

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5 October 2018 submitted that the learned CIT (A) was pleased to allow the alternative claim of the assessee under section 10A of the Act. Therefore, the assessee chose not file any appeal/CO as it was not aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A). However, the assessee subsequently as a matter of abundant precaution filed the cross objection

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made following disallowances: - Total income as per return of income 1,27,99,512/- Add: Additions/Disallowables as discussed above 1 Disallowance u/s.10A 1,33,37,787 2 Interest Disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) 3,19,556 3 Miscellaneous Expenses 1,00,000 4 License Fee 1,23,890 5

SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made following disallowances: - Total income as per return of income 1,27,99,512/- Add: Additions/Disallowables as discussed above 1 Disallowance u/s.10A 1,33,37,787 2 Interest Disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) 3,19,556 3 Miscellaneous Expenses 1,00,000 4 License Fee 1,23,890 5

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, VADODARA vs. M/S. WEB GAZER SOFTWARE COMPANY,, VADODARA

5 100% EOU and has been claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act since the last several years and the same has been consistently allowed by the Assessing Officer except being disallowed after reopening of the assessment under section 147 in the current A.Y. i.e. 2009-10 for the reason that it does not possess proper approval

ELITECORE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT.-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowing the set-off of the business loss of A.Y 2001-02 and added it back to the total income of the assessee-company. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of assessment dated 24th December 2009, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and by order dated 19th November 2010, the CIT(A) had dismissed

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

10A cannot be denied merely because at time of filing of return, claim had mistakenly been made under section 10B of the Act. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills v CIT 219 ITR 721 (Guj) held that provision of section 80J(6A) to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

10A cannot be denied merely because at time of filing of return, claim had mistakenly been made under section 10B of the Act. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills v CIT 219 ITR 721 (Guj) held that provision of section 80J(6A) to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

10A cannot be denied merely because at time of filing of return, claim had mistakenly been made under section 10B of the Act. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills v CIT 219 ITR 721 (Guj) held that provision of section 80J(6A) to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

10A cannot be denied merely because at time of filing of return, claim had mistakenly been made under section 10B of the Act. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills v CIT 219 ITR 721 (Guj) held that provision of section 80J(6A) to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

10A cannot be denied merely because at time of filing of return, claim had mistakenly been made under section 10B of the Act. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills v CIT 219 ITR 721 (Guj) held that provision of section 80J(6A) to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

10A cannot be denied merely because at time of filing of return, claim had mistakenly been made under section 10B of the Act. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Zenith Processing Mills v CIT 219 ITR 721 (Guj) held that provision of section 80J(6A) to extent it requires furnishing of auditor's report in prescribed form along

NACHIKET DIPAK SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1330/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nachiket Dipak Shah The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C4-C5, Incubation Centre, Ward-5(3)(2) V/S. It–Ites Sez Ahmedabad Million Mind Sez B/H. Nirma University Off. S.G. Road Ahmedabad – 382 481 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Amjps 7085 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

disallowed the claim under Section 143(1) of the Act, citing the assessee’s failure to file the mandatory audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income as required under Section 10AA(8), read with Section 10A(5

THIRD EYE ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(15) NOW WARD- 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

5 returned income. The PCIT passed order under Section 263 of the Act on 22.03.2017 setting aside the order afresh after verification and deduction under Section 10A claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act by disallowing

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance made under section 15JB of the Act as infructuous, he should have adjudicated the same on merit in the light of the order of the Hon’ble special bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet investments private Ltd reported in 165 ITD 27. 15. On the other hand the learned DR vehemently supported the order