TECHNODOT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.5,06,392/-.” 8. The assessee has raised the following Additional Grounds of Appeal: “5.0 The impugned assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.09.2013 is void-ab-initio and should be quashed since the statutory and mandatory approval was granted u/s 153D

AMIGO FINSTOCK PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

144A of the Act which was disposed of on 23.12.2016. The Assessing Officer observed that as per the reasons recorded and information available with the Income Tax Office, there was escapement of income in A.Y. 2009-10 on account Client Code Modification carried out by assessee company through its broker M/s. ANS Pvt. Ltd. which worked

SAGARLAXMI AGRISEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2017-18 Sagarlaxmi Agriseeds Pvt Ltd Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) 206, Ashwamegh Avenue Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Mithakhali Garden Navrangpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aawcs 7561 F (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharnidas V.S., Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

disallowing depreciation on goodwill, which issue was neither the subject nor within the scope of the limited scrutiny issue of increase in share capital. The scope of limited scrutiny on any issue cannot be enlarged in the absence of previous approval of the administrative Commissioner as directed by the CBDT’s (Central Board of Direct Taxes) instructions dated

KAUSHIKBHAI PRAHALADBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-7, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year : 2014-15 Kaushikbhai P. Patel Pr.Commissioner Of It-7 Ahmedabad. 43, Gidc Estate Vs. Naroda,Ahmedabad. Pan : Aavpp 9887 F

disallowing the claim of interest expenditure. Subsequently, it was observed that you have incurred the expenditure in Profit & Loss Account towards Development expenses of Rs.21,46,500/- and a questionnaire was also issued on 1/2016 by the 2 A.O. in this regard, In spite of the fact that you had failed to respond same, The A.O. (in his order passed

JYOTI LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1120 /Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year : 2013-14 Jyoti Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Nanubhai Amin Marg Vs Baroda. Industrial Area, Baroda Pan : Aaacj 4909 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Cit-Dr

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section

MEHAAN ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

disallowed the corresponding interest expenditure of Rs. 63,45,390/-. According to the Ld. PCIT, the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct proper enquiry on this issue and therefore the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the order was set aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh

ANMOL HIMANSHU PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HIMANSHU RAOJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4) NOW PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1479/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anmol Himanshu Patel The Ito बनाम/ (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Ward-1(1)(4) V/S. Raojibhai Patel) Now Present Jurisdiction Bs/B-7, Indraprasth Complex The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1)(1) Nr. Inox Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqpp 6460 P (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10/06/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Anmol Himanshu Patel (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel) Vs. Dcit Asst.Year 2015-16. “1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant, The Order Passed By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed.

disallowing depreciation on goodwill, which issue was neither the subject nor within the scope of the limited scrutiny issue of increase in share capital. The scope of limited scrutiny on any issue cannot be enlarged in the absence of previous approval of the administrative Commissioner as directed by the CBDT's (Central Board of Direct Taxes) instructions dated

THE VENUS PARKLAND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

144A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. There was a delay of 541 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit signed by Sh. Pathik Mehta, Secretary of the Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Venus Parkland Co-operative Housing Service Society Ltd. vs ITO Page 2 of 7 assessee

SHRI ANILKUMAR M. JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

section 273B and notwithstanding the fact that there existed a reasonable cause. The order be therefore quashed. 3.0 The appellant without prejudice to above further submits that the penalty imposed by the assessing officer in any event is excessively high. The appellant submits that penalty be reduced. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the assessment

DCIT, CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. OZONE INDIA LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance of Architect fees attributable to the unsold inventory.” 5. Briefly stated, the assessee company filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 in question which was subjected to scrutiny assessment. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was gathered by the AO that one M/s. Kalavir Estate Pvt. Ltd. (KEPL) amalgamated with the assessee company under the scheme

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GULMOHAR GREENS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

144A of the Act dated 9-12-2010 and the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax. Range-4, Ahmedabad issued directions vide letter No. Addl. CTTVRange- 4/144A/2010-11 dated 22-12-2010 which is reproduced hereunder: --------------------- --------------------- 3.6 It is equally relevant to mention that following the above specific directions of the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-4, Ahmedabad as given vide