ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

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

disallowed 10% of the total trade payables due to inadequate documentation and ITA Nos.661/Ahd/2023 (By Assessee), 732 & 807/Ahd/2023 (By Revenue) Oriental Enterprise Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 failure to provide proof of the genuineness of transactions. The lack of response from third parties to section 133

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

section 92CA(1) of the Act on account of determination of arm's length price of international transaction entered into by the assessee. 19. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO while relying upon his own decision for the AY 2003-04. 20. The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowed by the assessee under Section 37 of the Act. However, as the contribution to Mukhyamantri Shree Swachchta Nidhi Gujarat for sanitation work was eligible for deduction under Section 80G of the Act, the assessee had rightly claimed the deduction. The Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 80G(2)(a)(iiihk) and (iiihl

SHRI ASHOK MOHANLAL JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1207/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Ashok Mohanlal Jain, I.T.O, Prop Of Parshwanth Enterprise, Vs. Ward-1(3)(1), S/3, Sujata Flats, Ahmedabad. Camp Road, Sahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aczpj7617B

section 133(6) of the Act but no reply was received. Therefore identity of the party and genuineness of transaction was not ITA no.1207 & 1340/AHD/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 28 established by the assessee. Accordingly the learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition. We perused the ledger copy of the impugned party for the year under consideration and immediate subsequent year

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHOKKUMAR MOHANLAL JAIN,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1207/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Ashok Mohanlal Jain, I.T.O, Prop Of Parshwanth Enterprise, Vs. Ward-1(3)(1), S/3, Sujata Flats, Ahmedabad. Camp Road, Sahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aczpj7617B

section 133(6) of the Act but no reply was received. Therefore identity of the party and genuineness of transaction was not ITA no.1207 & 1340/AHD/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 28 established by the assessee. Accordingly the learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition. We perused the ledger copy of the impugned party for the year under consideration and immediate subsequent year

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii) the issue has also decided in Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 hereinabove. Therefore, Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 23. As relates to Ground No. 5 of Revenue’s appeal regarding deletion of disallowance of stamp duty and share capital expenses, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the said expenses

SHITAL VIPULKUMAR DHOLAKIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance under Section 40A(3) was made without adequate investigation and without establishing the foundational facts necessary to invoke the provision. The Tribunal noted a lack of proper enquiry into the banking trail and financial transactions of the suppliers.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "40A(3)", "143(3)", "133

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.( ERSTWHILE LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance of this amount by invoking Section 37 of the Act. 4. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is directly covered by order of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA No. 133