DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

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

3). Therefore, the Court held that the entire exemption of the trust is to be denied. In the present case, we deal with the violation of Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act: 7.5. The AO presented substantial evidence indicating that the trustees benefited from the trust's income through the systematic recovery of staff

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). Therefore, the Court held that the entire exemption of the trust is to be denied. In the present case, we deal with the violation of Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act: 7.5. The AO presented substantial evidence indicating that the trustees benefited from the trust's income through the systematic recovery of staff

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). Therefore, the Court held that the entire exemption of the trust is to be denied. In the present case, we deal with the violation of Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act: 7.5. The AO presented substantial evidence indicating that the trustees benefited from the trust's income through the systematic recovery of staff

THE DDIT (EXEMP.), AHMEDABAD vs. ADARSH FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O. P Meena & Ms. Madhumita Royआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1858/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम Deputy Director Of Income Tax Adarsh Foundation, Vs. (Exemption), Ahmedabad C/O Sal Hospital & Medical Institution, Opp. Doordarshan Tower, Drive- In-Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Pan:Aaa Ta2 111 J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

3,70,60,272/-. In my opinion, AO has not interpreted the law correctly. The AO has not taken cognizance of the language of section 11 while making such disallowance. Nowhere is it mentioned in section 11 that previous year’s/(s) brought forward deficit cannot be set off against current year’s surplus of funds. Further, the section also

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

13. Once the assessment proceeding is held to be void and quashed by the order passed in the Cross Objection 10/Ahd/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13 as above, the appeal preferred by the Revenue arising out of the order of addition become infructuous. Hence, the same is dismissed as infructuous. ITA No. 962/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15):- 14. The grounds of appeal

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

13. Once the assessment proceeding is held to be void and quashed by the order passed in the Cross Objection 10/Ahd/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13 as above, the appeal preferred by the Revenue arising out of the order of addition become infructuous. Hence, the same is dismissed as infructuous. ITA No. 962/Ahd/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15):- 14. The grounds of appeal

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

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

3,65,68,91,720 Proportionate Interest Disallowance (B × C) ÷ A Amount Disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 11,29,21,996 ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 43 80. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the disallowance was unjustified and that it had substantial interest-free funds available throughout the year, far in excess of the average CWIP balance

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

3,65,68,91,720 Proportionate Interest Disallowance (B × C) ÷ A Amount Disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 11,29,21,996 ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 43 80. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the disallowance was unjustified and that it had substantial interest-free funds available throughout the year, far in excess of the average CWIP balance

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

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 of Rs.8,26,43,616/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), which was also added back while computing book profits under section 115JB; ii. disallowance of Rs.1

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

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

13 Disallowances of leave encashment 3,998,673 14 Disallowances under section 14A 36,066,172 2.2 The amount of penalty was levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

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

13 Disallowances of leave encashment 3,998,673 14 Disallowances under section 14A 36,066,172 2.2 The amount of penalty was levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c

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

c). 8. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that even though the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer with reference to Sections 11 to 13 of the Act, disallowing

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

c). 8. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that even though the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer with reference to Sections 11 to 13 of the Act, disallowing

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

c) of the Act on account of concealment of income derived from the following disallowances made in the case of the assessee which stood confirmed up to the ITAT:- (i) Disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Rs.1,77,20,947/-, sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and confirmed by the ITAT to Rs.65,20,741/- (ii) Disallowance of loading and unloading

EAGLE STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

13 -08-2018 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 25.08.2015 pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 that the ld. CIT(A) 2 . A.Y. 2012-13 for confirming disallowance of Rs. 26,68,187/- by invoking provisions of section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section