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

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

2) and 142(1) were issued and served to the assessee. On August 3, 2015, another notice under Section 142(1), accompanied by a detailed questionnaire, was sent, but there was no compliance from the assessee’s side. The assessee, whose income sources included business and other avenues, was summoned on January 8, 2015, under Section 131 to produce necessary

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

2) and 142(1) were issued and served to the assessee. On August 3, 2015, another notice under Section 142(1), accompanied by a detailed questionnaire, was sent, but there was no compliance from the assessee’s side. The assessee, whose income sources included business and other avenues, was summoned on January 8, 2015, under Section 131 to produce necessary

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

2 per cent. We observe that in the instant facts, the assessee has computed the ALP at LIBOR plus 2.5%. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has upheld the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer on the Ground that the assessee has not given the comparable basis for arriving at the aforesaid rate. However, in our view, the Ld. CIT(Appeals

VISHAL BALVANTRAI AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.226/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 249 New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-1 V/S. O/S. Raipur Gate Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adbpa 4462 G (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

249 New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-1 v/s. O/S. Raipur Gate Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: ADBPA 4462 G (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Divyakant Parikh, AR Revenue by : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश

SAVLI TALUKA SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EMPLOYEES CO OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1772/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Savli Taluka Secondary & The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Higher Secondary Employees Ward-1(2)(2) V/S. Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. Vadodara – 390 007 18, Rayakaka Park Savli Desar Road Vadodara – 391 770. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafas 6647 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Bakshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm:

disallowance under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act are mixed questions of fact and law requiring proper Savli Taluka Secondary and Higher Secondary Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2019-20 verification, we are of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the file

DARPAN KANUBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 123/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Darpan Kanubhai Shah The Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Darpan Travels, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Near Ramji Mandir, Vadodara Madanzampa Road, Vadodara-390001 Pan : Agips 3405 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Samir Parikh, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 22.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “(1) The Learned Cit(Appeal) Is Not Correct In Holding That The Assessee Has Not Filed Return Of Income U/S 148. Consequently The Learned Cit (Appeal) Is Not Correct That The Appeal Is Not Liable To Be Admitted. (Ii) Alternatively Appeal Is Allowed By Set Aside The Order & Matter Referred Back To The Desk Of Hon. Cit For Reconsideration. Darpan Kanubhai Shah Vs. Ito Ay : 2018-19 2

2 (iii) Without prejudice to the above, The Learned Assessing Officer is not correct in holding agriculture land as Capital Asset and not correct in adding sum of Rs. 52,41,028/- as Long Term Capital Gain on Sale of Agriculture Land. (iv) Without prejudice to the above, the Learned Assessing Officer is also not correct to disallow claim

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2(15) of the Act was not applicable so far as the assessees are concerned and thereby allowed exemption u/s.11 of the Act and consequently deleted the disallowances made by the AO. These judgments of M/s. AUDA and M/s. GIDC are now confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the batch of cases reported in CIT vs. AUDA

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2(15) of the Act was not applicable so far as the assessees are concerned and thereby allowed exemption u/s.11 of the Act and consequently deleted the disallowances made by the AO. These judgments of M/s. AUDA and M/s. GIDC are now confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the batch of cases reported in CIT vs. AUDA

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2(15) of the Act was not applicable so far as the assessees are concerned and thereby allowed exemption u/s.11 of the Act and consequently deleted the disallowances made by the AO. These judgments of M/s. AUDA and M/s. GIDC are now confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the batch of cases reported in CIT vs. AUDA

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2(15) of the Act was not applicable so far as the assessees are concerned and thereby allowed exemption u/s.11 of the Act and consequently deleted the disallowances made by the AO. These judgments of M/s. AUDA and M/s. GIDC are now confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the batch of cases reported in CIT vs. AUDA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

disallowing [c] Unexplained rental expenses of Rs. 5,00,000/= [d] Unaccounted profit of. Rs.11,29,61,022/= [e] Suppression of sale - Gas turbine Rs. 3,41,34,100/=. 2.3. Ld TPO, while passing the order u/s 92CA(3) has accepted the underlying transactions to be at Arms Length Pricing [ALP] and therefore not made any adjustment in relation

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

disallowing [c] Unexplained rental expenses of Rs. 5,00,000/= [d] Unaccounted profit of. Rs.11,29,61,022/= [e] Suppression of sale - Gas turbine Rs. 3,41,34,100/=. 2.3. Ld TPO, while passing the order u/s 92CA(3) has accepted the underlying transactions to be at Arms Length Pricing [ALP] and therefore not made any adjustment in relation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

disallowing [c] Unexplained rental expenses of Rs. 5,00,000/= [d] Unaccounted profit of. Rs.11,29,61,022/= [e] Suppression of sale - Gas turbine Rs. 3,41,34,100/=. 2.3. Ld TPO, while passing the order u/s 92CA(3) has accepted the underlying transactions to be at Arms Length Pricing [ALP] and therefore not made any adjustment in relation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

disallowing [c] Unexplained rental expenses of Rs. 5,00,000/= [d] Unaccounted profit of. Rs.11,29,61,022/= [e] Suppression of sale - Gas turbine Rs. 3,41,34,100/=. 2.3. Ld TPO, while passing the order u/s 92CA(3) has accepted the underlying transactions to be at Arms Length Pricing [ALP] and therefore not made any adjustment in relation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

disallowing [c] Unexplained rental expenses of Rs. 5,00,000/= [d] Unaccounted profit of. Rs.11,29,61,022/= [e] Suppression of sale - Gas turbine Rs. 3,41,34,100/=. 2.3. Ld TPO, while passing the order u/s 92CA(3) has accepted the underlying transactions to be at Arms Length Pricing [ALP] and therefore not made any adjustment in relation

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

249/- pertaining to revenue transactions relating\nimport of goods for its use in normal course of the business activities carried on by\nthe assesses.\nThus, the assessee has rightly and consistently recorded the effect of exchange rate\ndifferences and as a result has claimed such loss arising due to changes in exchange\nrate as an allowable business expenses

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

249/- pertaining to revenue transactions relating\nimport of goods for its use in normal course of the business activities carried on by\nthe assesses.\nThus, the assessee has rightly and consistently recorded the effect of exchange rate\ndifferences and as a result has claimed such loss arising due to changes in exchange\nrate as an allowable business expenses

THE ANKLAV MERCANTILE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,ANAND vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowances, was computed at a sum of ₹8,83,04,780/- and penalty proceedings were also initiated. 4. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that it was filed with an inordinate delay of 242 days beyond the prescribed limitation period under section 249(2