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

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED, ELLISBRIDGE

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 14A of the Act is allowed. ITA Nos.142&143/Ahd/2024 & 48&49/Ahd/2024 Axis Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Axis Bank Ltd. Asst.Years –2010-11 & 2011-12 - 9– Now we shall come to Department’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 15. The sole/single issue for consideration is regarding the disallowance of ESOP expenses, which was allowed

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. AXIS BANK LTD, ELISBRIDGE

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 14A of the Act is allowed. ITA Nos.142&143/Ahd/2024 & 48&49/Ahd/2024 Axis Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Axis Bank Ltd. Asst.Years –2010-11 & 2011-12 - 9– Now we shall come to Department’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 15. The sole/single issue for consideration is regarding the disallowance of ESOP expenses, which was allowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 14A of the Act is allowed. ITA Nos.142&143/Ahd/2024 & 48&49/Ahd/2024 Axis Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Axis Bank Ltd. Asst.Years –2010-11 & 2011-12 - 9– Now we shall come to Department’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 15. The sole/single issue for consideration is regarding the disallowance of ESOP expenses, which was allowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 14A of the Act is allowed. ITA Nos.142&143/Ahd/2024 & 48&49/Ahd/2024 Axis Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Axis Bank Ltd. Asst.Years –2010-11 & 2011-12 - 9– Now we shall come to Department’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 15. The sole/single issue for consideration is regarding the disallowance of ESOP expenses, which was allowed

N. K. PROTEINS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

disallowance under section 14A could not be made. The Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. [2022] 144

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance under section 14A could not be made. The Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. [2022] 144

THE ASST. CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance under section 14A could not be made. The Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. [2022] 144

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 25. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the assessment order on various reasoning including on account of notice issued under section 148 r.w.s. 150(2) of the Act which was time barred, assessment was made without issuing valid notice under

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 25. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the assessment order on various reasoning including on account of notice issued under section 148 r.w.s. 150(2) of the Act which was time barred, assessment was made without issuing valid notice under

MADRESA MOHAMMADIYAN AND PANJATANIYA,DAHOD GUJARAT vs. CIT(E), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Madressa Mohammadiyn & Cit(Exemption) Panjataniya, Madresa Raildings Nehru Bridge B/H. Tower Talav Road, Dahod. Ahmedabad. Pan : Brdmo 8620 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

144 dated 06.02.2023, a centralized communication dated 08.02.2023 by NaFAC, and a further show cause under section 144B(1)(xii)(b) dated 07.03.2023 also remained un-responded. On 13.03.2023 a show cause setting out the proposed variations was issued; the assessee uploaded a reply on 16.03.2023. An additional show cause dated 17.03.2023 regarding disallowance

M/S. ATUL LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

144(C)(13) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same the assessee has come up in appeal before us. 3. The assessee has raised as many as sixteen grounds of appeal. 4. Ground no.1 to 6, raised by the assessee, it was contended before us, related to the issue of transfer pricing adjustment made to the international transactions entered into

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowances of deduction under section 80IA(10) of the Act for Rs. 2,13,425/- after invoking the provision of section 80IE(6) of the Act. Group Appeals – Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd (Erstwhile M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim) AY : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 3 2.1 At the outset we note that the learned AR for the assessee before

HARISHKUMAR KHUSHALRAY BHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2) NOW WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Harishkumar Khushalray Bhatt Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) P/1, Chandragupta Apartment Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Gordhandas Patel Hospital Vastrapur Ahmedabad. Pan : Abspb 3786 F (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Pritesh L. Shah, Ar : Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

144 of the Act by the Assessing Officer, wherein the total income was assessed at Rs.1,95,45,456/- as against the returned income of Rs.11,57,940/- making above mentioned additions. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee challenged the additions made under sections 69A and 68, the estimation of net profit, and the disallowance

RAMESHKUMAR G. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5) PRESENT JURISDICTION ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

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

disallowed the expenses.\n3.5 The learned CIT(A), while expressing that the assessee failed to file\nadequate documentary evidence despite sufficient opportunity, dismissed\nthe appeal and confirmed the assessment made under section 144

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

144 of the Act also for finalizing assessment under Best Judgment Assessment, disallowance of Rs.1,25,63,451/- was proposed whereas ultimate disallowance was made to the tune of Rs.4,62,50,000/- under Section

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

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

144 of the Act also for finalizing assessment under Best Judgment Assessment, disallowance of Rs.1,25,63,451/- was proposed whereas ultimate disallowance was made to the tune of Rs.4,62,50,000/- under Section

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance under section\n14A could not be made. The Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi\nInternational Airport (P.) Ltd. [2022] 144