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

Section 37, it must not be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The CIT(A) noted that the AO accepted the purchases or expenses related to the creditors as genuine in the earlier years or the 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 current year

THE ITO,PATAN WARD-3,, MEHSANA vs. M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK TRANSPORT, MEHSANA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2008-09

246/-; that the condition precedent for deduction of TDS, as per section 194C, is that the deduction of TDS is not required to be made if the payment does not exceed Rs.20,000/- and if it does exceed Rs.20,000/-, but the overall aggregate payment does not exceed Rs.50,000/-; and that so, no disallowance

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 made by the AO against which the Revenue was in appeal before the ITAT in ITA No. 3541/Mum/2015 which has been vide order dated 16th May 2019 decided in the favour of the assessee. Thus, once the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction under section 80IE is upheld in the first year of claim, the same cannot

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

246 taxman 31 (17). (iii) The appellant has also taken one more argument that investments from which exempt dividend income is not received should be excluded for the purpose of section 14A. The decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High court and other court relied upon by appellant states that when no exempt dividend income is earned, 14A disallowance

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

246 taxman 31 (17). (iii) The appellant has also taken one more argument that investments from which exempt dividend income is not received should be excluded for the purpose of section 14A. The decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High court and other court relied upon by appellant states that when no exempt dividend income is earned, 14A disallowance

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

246 taxman 31 (17). (iii) The appellant has also taken one more argument that investments from which exempt dividend income is not received should be excluded for the purpose of section 14A. The decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High court and other court relied upon by appellant states that when no exempt dividend income is earned, 14A disallowance

ATUL GOVINDJI SHROFF,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee under repotting the Income which is in I.T.A No. 1443/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 8 Atul Govindji Shroff vs. DCIT consequence of misreporting of facts, penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the 1.T. Act are also being initiated. 5. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PINAC STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

disallowed." 16.1 However, the undisputed fact is this that the assessee has not made any sales of the shares of the impugned company. Therefore, in our considered view the addition has been made by the AO which was consequently confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), on wrong assumption of facts. 16.2 It is also pertinent to note that the loss

CB DOCTOR VENTILATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

Section 43B and explanation there-under. (c) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the impugned disallowance in utter disregard to the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court, High Court and ITAT in following judicial pronouncements: a) CIT vs. Vinay Cement Company Limited

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. APPLITECH SOLUTION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act for the year under consideration, i.e. AY 2001-02, was not sustainable. At the time of ITA Nos. 246

A. MENARINI INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad&Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2199/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) A. Menarini India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Circle- 1(1)(1), A-101, Shapath Iv, Vs. Ahmedabad Near Karnavati Club, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaa Ci9 822 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. All the ground of appeal of the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Ahmedabad are pertained to the solitary issue of confirming disallowance of Rs. 11,95,274/- being the amount of employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC. Therefore, for the sake of convenience

DENIS CHEM LAB LIMITED,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasaddenis Chem Lab Ltd. Acit, बनाम/ Block No.457, Mehsana Circle, Vs. Gidc Estate, Phase – I, Mehsana. Village : Chhatral, Tal. Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd 4123 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Parth Patel, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri O.P. Pathak, Joit.Cit

Section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act in utter disregard to the fact that Employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC had been paid before the due date for the filing of the return of income u/s.139(1) and therefore the entire amount is eligible for deduction u/s.43B of the I.T. Act. (b) The learned Commissioner of Income

MARDIA COPPER EXTRUTIONS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 229/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1990-1991 M/S Mardia Copper Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, C/O Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), 105, Sakar-I, Near Gandhigram Railway Ahmedabad. Station, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabcm3848G

246 or section 246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal lo the Nigh Court under section 260A or an appeal to Ihe Supreme Conn under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition

YUDO HOT RUNNERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the addition under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.1,21,467/- thereby stating that the assessee has evaded tax. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

disallowance as per the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act of devolvement of SBLC of Rs. 30.98 crores considering capital loss and not revenue loss in nature. The assessee has raised objection before the DRP I.T.A Nos. 976/Ahd/2014 & 10 others Page No 4 Dy. CIT vs. GHCL Ltd. & 10 others against the proposed adjustment of Rs. 30.96 crores

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GHCL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

disallowance as per the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act of devolvement of SBLC of Rs. 30.98 crores considering capital loss and not revenue loss in nature. The assessee has raised objection before the DRP I.T.A Nos. 976/Ahd/2014 & 10 others Page No 4 Dy. CIT vs. GHCL Ltd. & 10 others against the proposed adjustment of Rs. 30.96 crores

CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SUNIT SUDHIRBHAI CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) On The Quantum Addition, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition To Rs.4,71,46,684/- Only. Thus The Assessing Officer Levied Penalty Of Rs.2,80,88,610/- Being 60% Of Addition Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 271Aab Of The Act.

Disallowance of 2,29,79,570 The Ld. CIT(A) - interest expenditure has deleted the on bogus unsecured addition. loan , I.T.A Nos. 1474 & 1475/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Sunit Sudhirbhai Chokshi 4. Addition on account 3,10,475 The Ld. CIT(A) The Ld. ITAT of commission has confirmed has confirmed addition expenses

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) , AHMEDABAD vs. SUNIT SUDHIRBHAI CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) On The Quantum Addition, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition To Rs.4,71,46,684/- Only. Thus The Assessing Officer Levied Penalty Of Rs.2,80,88,610/- Being 60% Of Addition Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 271Aab Of The Act.

Disallowance of 2,29,79,570 The Ld. CIT(A) - interest expenditure has deleted the on bogus unsecured addition. loan , I.T.A Nos. 1474 & 1475/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Sunit Sudhirbhai Chokshi 4. Addition on account 3,10,475 The Ld. CIT(A) The Ld. ITAT of commission has confirmed has confirmed addition expenses