DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 201(1) of the Act are satisfied, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall be deleted

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

disallowance. We uphold his action, and dismiss the grievance raised by the Assessing Officer. 5. As regards the references to Section 9(1)(vii), as made by the Assessing Officer and the learned Departmental Representative, we find that aspect of the matter is also covered, in favour of the assessee, by a large number of judicial precedents- including

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

disallowance. We uphold his action, and dismiss the grievance raised by the Assessing Officer. 5. As regards the references to Section 9(1)(vii), as made by the Assessing Officer and the learned Departmental Representative, we find that aspect of the matter is also covered, in favour of the assessee, by a large number of judicial precedents- including

KAD STEEL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, TDS, ASHRAM ROAD,

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

201(1A) of the Act, since the income has already been offered to tax by the respective recipients / payees in their return of income. Further, the Counsel for the also submitted that the assessee was in receipt of Form 15GH/H from the recipients / payees and the same had also been deposited with the concerned Tax Authorities, Kad Steel Rolling Mills

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

201(1A) or 206C(7) amounting to ₹98,791/- was payable. However, this amount was not disallowed while computing the total income, nor was it disallowed by the A.O. during assessment. Second, the assessee had claimed a deduction of ₹1,32,40,376/- under section

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 37(1), which categorically bars deduction of amounts paid in connection with offences or activities prohibited by law. Ld. DR accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be reversed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be restored in full. ITA Nos. 1882/Ahd/2024 & 981&982/Ahd/2023 Anupam Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT & ITA No. 1015/Ahd/2023

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 37(1), which categorically bars deduction of amounts paid in connection with offences or activities prohibited by law. Ld. DR accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be reversed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be restored in full. ITA Nos. 1882/Ahd/2024 & 981&982/Ahd/2023 Anupam Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT & ITA No. 1015/Ahd/2023

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 37(1), which categorically bars deduction of amounts paid in connection with offences or activities prohibited by law. Ld. DR accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be reversed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be restored in full. ITA Nos. 1882/Ahd/2024 & 981&982/Ahd/2023 Anupam Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT & ITA No. 1015/Ahd/2023

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

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 37(1), which categorically bars deduction of amounts paid in connection with offences or activities prohibited by law. Ld. DR accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be reversed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be restored in full. ITA Nos. 1882/Ahd/2024 & 981&982/Ahd/2023 Anupam Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT & ITA No. 1015/Ahd/2023

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of deduction under section 80-IE of the Act in Sikkim Unit on other incomes. 60. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has claimed deduction of profit derived from Sikkim Unit under section 80-IE of the Act. As per the AO, there were certain incomes considered by the assessee eligible for deduction under section

ARCHIT CORPORATION,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3),, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 683/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Archit Corporation Llp, I.T.O., (Earlier Known As Archit Corporation) Vs. Ward-2(3), 54, Ganesh Krupa, Bhavnagar. Vijayraj Nagar, Bhavnagar.

disallowance by virtue of the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. For this purpose, the matter can be referred back to the AO for the necessary verification. 16.3 Undoubtedly, the primary onus lies upon the assessee to deduct the TDS under chapter XVIII-B of the Act. In case, the assessee fails to deduct

DEENDAYAL PORT AUTHORITY,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.813/Ahd/2024 & 846/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Respectively

201/- towards prior period expenses. • Addition of Rs.3,98,31,857/- as excess losses disallowed. ITA No.813 & 846/Ahd/2024 Deendayal Port Authority vs. The DCIT, Circle-2 Exemption Asst. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively AY 2007-08: • Disallowance of Rs.2,35,00,000/- under Section

DEENDAYAL PORT AUTHORITY,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.813/Ahd/2024 & 846/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Respectively

201/- towards prior period expenses. • Addition of Rs.3,98,31,857/- as excess losses disallowed. ITA No.813 & 846/Ahd/2024 Deendayal Port Authority vs. The DCIT, Circle-2 Exemption Asst. Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively AY 2007-08: • Disallowance of Rs.2,35,00,000/- under Section

BACKBONE TARMET NG JV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

disallowance has been made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction of tax at source. The first proviso in lieu of which the assessee was granted relief by the ITAT to the tune of Rs.32,18,58,199/- was brought on the statute by Finance Act, 2010 with effect from 01.04.2010 and the provision so amended reads

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 on the basis of the same. 5.7 In the case of Haridas Parikh V ITO [2009] 29 SOT 13 (30DH.)(URO), it was held by Hon'ble Tribunal that Unless the Assessing Officer is able to point out certain transactions which have been left to be entered in the books of account or that the assessee has sold some

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Rules is dismissed. 27. Ground of appeal No. 2- 2.5 is dismissed. 28. In effect appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 29. We shall now take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2853/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. 30. Ground no. 1 reads as under: 1. Whether on the facts & circumstances

THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S. KALPARATRU POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Rules is dismissed. 27. Ground of appeal No. 2- 2.5 is dismissed. 28. In effect appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 29. We shall now take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2853/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. 30. Ground no. 1 reads as under: 1. Whether on the facts & circumstances

KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Rules is dismissed. 27. Ground of appeal No. 2- 2.5 is dismissed. 28. In effect appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 29. We shall now take up the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.2853/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. 30. Ground no. 1 reads as under: 1. Whether on the facts & circumstances

KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Sections Kiri Industries Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3– 201(1A) and 206C(7) towards late payment of TDS. Principal CIT observed that the AO did not disallow