SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

1)(ii). It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee if the assessee has earned it in India. The word “earned” had been judicially defined in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

1)(ii). It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee if the assessee has earned it in India. The word “earned” had been judicially defined in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

1)(ii). It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee if the assessee has earned it in India. The word “earned” had been judicially defined in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

1)(ii). It includes salaries in the total income of an assessee if the assessee has earned it in India. The word “earned” had been judicially defined in S.G. Pgnatale [(1980) 124 ITR 391 (Guj)] by the High Court of Gujarat, in our view, correctly, to mean as income “arising or accruing in India”. The amendment to the section

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

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

disallow Rs.26,25,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. Before us, the Ld.AR stated that the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Indian Savings Products Ltd. (265 ITR 250

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

disallow Rs.26,25,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. Before us, the Ld.AR stated that the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Indian Savings Products Ltd. (265 ITR 250

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

disallow Rs.26,25,000/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 13. Before us, the Ld.AR stated that the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Indian Savings Products Ltd. (265 ITR 250

GELOT AGRI EXPORTS,DEESA vs. ITO WD 1 PALANPUR, BANASKANTHA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) ITA No.1739 and 225/Ahd/2024 2 pertaining Assessment Year 2018-19 confirming the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the assessment framed on the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act additions were made to its income

ITO, WARD-1, PALANPUR, PALANPUR vs. GELOT AGRI EXPORTS, PALANPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) ITA No.1739 and 225/Ahd/2024 2 pertaining Assessment Year 2018-19 confirming the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the assessment framed on the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act additions were made to its income

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present 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 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in issuing a notice

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) of even dated i.e. 13.02.2023 pertaining to the above three assessment years. 2. It was common ground that the issues raised in above three appeals were common and arising from identical set of facts. Therefore, all the appeals were taken up together for hearing, and are being disposed

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) of even dated i.e. 13.02.2023 pertaining to the above three assessment years. 2. It was common ground that the issues raised in above three appeals were common and arising from identical set of facts. Therefore, all the appeals were taken up together for hearing, and are being disposed

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) of even dated i.e. 13.02.2023 pertaining to the above three assessment years. 2. It was common ground that the issues raised in above three appeals were common and arising from identical set of facts. Therefore, all the appeals were taken up together for hearing, and are being disposed

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

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

disallowed to the total income of the assessee shall be deemed as concealment of income. 19.1. Coming to case on hand, there was no iota of evidence suggesting that the assessee failed to offer an explanation or explanation offered by the assessee was false. Thus, the first situation under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) does not survive

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

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

disallowed to the total income of the assessee shall be deemed as concealment of income. 19.1. Coming to case on hand, there was no iota of evidence suggesting that the assessee failed to offer an explanation or explanation offered by the assessee was false. Thus, the first situation under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) does not survive

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

250/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 39. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the brother of the assessee, Shri Rohit Thakore was the co-owner of this property, wherein assessments were framed pursuant to the same search carried out on 21.09.2010. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that