ORIENTAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

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

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Facts of the case: 2. The assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of engineering equipment for chemicals, petrochemicals, fertilizers, textiles and other industries. The assessee also acts as agents of indigenous manufacturers from various industries viz. chemicals, textiles, plastics, machine toolsets

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

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Facts of the case: 2. The assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of engineering equipment for chemicals, petrochemicals, fertilizers, textiles and other industries. The assessee also acts as agents of indigenous manufacturers from various industries viz. chemicals, textiles, plastics, machine toolsets

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

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Facts of the case: 2. The assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of engineering equipment for chemicals, petrochemicals, fertilizers, textiles and other industries. The assessee also acts as agents of indigenous manufacturers from various industries viz. chemicals, textiles, plastics, machine toolsets

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 21.03.2023 assessing Alang Steel Recycling Private Limited vs. Pr.CIT A.Y: 2018-19 the total income at ₹88,37,215/-. The case was reopened on the basis of information received from the investigation wing alleging that the assessee had availed bogus purchase bills through Shri Gurukamal Singh, proprietor

TORRENT INVESTMENTS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TORRENT INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under: “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, impugned order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is bad in law and deserves

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2017-18 & 2020-21. 2. In both the appeals common grounds are raised by the Assessee and the Revenue, for the sake of convenience, the same are disposed of by this common order. First we will take

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2017-18 & 2020-21. 2. In both the appeals common grounds are raised by the Assessee and the Revenue, for the sake of convenience, the same are disposed of by this common order. First we will take

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2017-18 & 2020-21. 2. In both the appeals common grounds are raised by the Assessee and the Revenue, for the sake of convenience, the same are disposed of by this common order. First we will take

THE JT.CIT, (OSD)CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2017-18 & 2020-21. 2. In both the appeals common grounds are raised by the Assessee and the Revenue, for the sake of convenience, the same are disposed of by this common order. First we will take

MONO STEEEL (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed Rs. 13,07,33,858/- under section 80-IA of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29.03.2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), while passing the order dated 06.03.2025, set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after affording

MONO STEEEL (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed Rs. 13,07,33,858/- under section 80-IA of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29.03.2022, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), while passing the order dated 06.03.2025, set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after affording

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee reads as under:- “1. Disallowance

HESTER BIOSCIENCE LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) on 10.09.2022, wherein the Assessing Officer (A.O.) accepted the income as returned, without making any adjustments or disallowances

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

144B by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated\n22.12.2022 for the Assessment Year 2021-22.\n2.\nFacts and Background of the Case\n2.1 The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in\nbullion, jewellery and ornaments under the proprietorship concern named\nM/s. Shreeji Ornaments. The return of income for A.Y. 2021–22 was filed

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is also allowed for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) at an income of ₹32,15,58,481/-. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had made two additions: ₹75,907/- under section 14A of the Act and a sum of ₹2,85,31,585/-, which was disallowed

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is also allowed for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) at an income of ₹32,15,58,481/-. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had made two additions: ₹75,907/- under section 14A of the Act and a sum of ₹2,85,31,585/-, which was disallowed

ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B determining the total income at Nil and reducing the returned loss to Rs. 5,18,07,905/-. This reduction was due to an addition of Rs. 5,59,39,900/-, being 10% of the total expenditure of Rs. 5,593.99 lakhs claimed under major heads such as raw material cost (Rs. 3,294.58 lakhs), manufacturing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND vs. ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, ANAND

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B determining the total income at Nil and reducing the returned loss to Rs. 5,18,07,905/-. This reduction was due to an addition of Rs. 5,59,39,900/-, being 10% of the total expenditure of Rs. 5,593.99 lakhs claimed under major heads such as raw material cost (Rs. 3,294.58 lakhs), manufacturing