PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

3) of the Act. The provisions of Section 13(1)(d) further speak about utilisation of trust income and investments thereof in particular manners. There is prohibition of utilisation of trust funds to be invested or deposited otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11 and on perusal

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

3) of the Act. The provisions of Section 13(1)(d) further speak about utilisation of trust income and investments thereof in particular manners. There is prohibition of utilisation of trust funds to be invested or deposited otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11 and on perusal

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

3) of the Act. The provisions of Section 13(1)(d) further speak about utilisation of trust income and investments thereof in particular manners. There is prohibition of utilisation of trust funds to be invested or deposited otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11 and on perusal

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 40A(3) of the Act so as to warrant interference. We, therefore, confirm the same. The Revenue’s this ground of appeal is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. ITA Nos.1115 & 962/Ahd/2019 & CO No.10/Ahd/2022(in ITA No. 1115/A/19) Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2014-15 32. Ground No. 5:- Restricting disallowance

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 40A(3) of the Act so as to warrant interference. We, therefore, confirm the same. The Revenue’s this ground of appeal is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed. ITA Nos.1115 & 962/Ahd/2019 & CO No.10/Ahd/2022(in ITA No. 1115/A/19) Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2014-15 32. Ground No. 5:- Restricting disallowance

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

13) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The maintainability of the very proceeding is under challenge before us to this effect that the Transfer Pricing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) has erred in exceeding the jurisdiction by passing the transfer pricing order under Section

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13), determining total income at Rs.178,23,60,063/- as against the returned income of Rs.168,29,62,390/-, after making the following additions: i. disallowance

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

13,583/- under section 115JB of the Act. The return of income was selected for scrutiny under the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was duly issued. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued from time to time, to which the assessee filed replies and furnished necessary

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

13,583/- under section 115JB of the Act. The return of income was selected for scrutiny under the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was duly issued. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued from time to time, to which the assessee filed replies and furnished necessary

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

Section 144C(3) of the Act, adopted the TPO’s findings and passed an assessment order determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.80,85,45,535/-, after making the following adjustments: and CO No.10/Ahd/2024 (By Assessee) The Asstt.CIT vs. Inductotherm (India) Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year:2016-17 3 - Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.2,67,13,481/-. - Disallowance

RAMCHAND BHULCHAND RAJAI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1, , BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

Section 40A(3) of the Act in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/-. • That mere disallowance of claim of expense would not attract levy of penalty. 13

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 29-12-2011 assessing the total income at Rs.22,55,48,604/-. Thereafter, a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 09-03-2015 for the reasons [a] disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D was wrongly worked out at Rs.1,13

THE ACIT,(E) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. RAI UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed; whereas the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2014-15 Rai University, Asst. Commissioner Of 398-400-401-403, Vs Income-Tax (E), Village : Saroda, Taluka : Dholka, Circle-1, Ahmedabad – 382260 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabar 4376 A Assessment Years : 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Rai University, Income-Tax (E), Vs Village : Saroda, Circle-1, Taluka : Dholka, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 382260 Pan : Aabar 4376 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. Dr & Shri Anshu Prakas, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No.386/Ahd/2019 & Other Filed By The Revenue Being

3) of the Act, the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 11 of the Act was disallowed by him. The learned Counsel for the assessee has contended that since the assessment made by the Assessing Officer with reference to Section 11 r.w.s. 13

RAI UNIVERSITY,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT,(E) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed; whereas the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2014-15 Rai University, Asst. Commissioner Of 398-400-401-403, Vs Income-Tax (E), Village : Saroda, Taluka : Dholka, Circle-1, Ahmedabad – 382260 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabar 4376 A Assessment Years : 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Rai University, Income-Tax (E), Vs Village : Saroda, Circle-1, Taluka : Dholka, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 382260 Pan : Aabar 4376 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. Dr & Shri Anshu Prakas, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No.386/Ahd/2019 & Other Filed By The Revenue Being

3) of the Act, the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 11 of the Act was disallowed by him. The learned Counsel for the assessee has contended that since the assessment made by the Assessing Officer with reference to Section 11 r.w.s. 13

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2014-15 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd. Ahmedabad. ‘Apollo House’ Rashmi Society Nr.Mithakhali Six Roads Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacg 7248 P

3 Romeo Zoppe Rs.6,82,988/- 4 Binod Shah Rs. 72,100/- 5 Binod Shah Rs.2,41,966/- 6 Binod'Shah Rs.3,18,825/- 7 Sola Tech Ltd. Rs.3,18,825/- 8 Demir Yilmaz Rs.54,750/- 9 Rs. 1,08, 660/- Anup Kumar Sinha Oman Total . Rs.18,84,793/- The ld.CIT(A) accordingly upheld the order

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section