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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

6. As far as the Assessing Officer's action is concerned, the disallowance has been made on the basis of a calculation of the proportionate interest alleged to be attributable to the investment earning exempted dividend income. It is also to be noted that while doing so for the years under consideration the A.O. has not followed the past method

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)

6 & 7 of the Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2022 … … … Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT, (2005) 12 SCC 717 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes

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)

6 & 7 of the Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2022 … … … Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT, (2005) 12 SCC 717 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes

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)

6 & 7 of the Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2022 … … … Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT, (2005) 12 SCC 717 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes

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)

6 & 7 of the Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2022 … … … Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT, (2005) 12 SCC 717 has held that a retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes

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

6. We have heard the parties, perused the material available on the record and noted the judicial precedents relied on by the assessee and the Ld.CIT(A). The judicial precedents collectively establish the principles regarding cessation of liability under Section 41(1) of the Act, which held that the onus is on the AO to prove the cessation or remission

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

6. We have heard the parties, perused the material available on the record and noted the judicial precedents relied on by the assessee and the Ld.CIT(A). The judicial precedents collectively establish the principles regarding cessation of liability under Section 41(1) of the Act, which held that the onus is on the AO to prove the cessation or remission

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

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

6. We have heard the parties, perused the material available on the record and noted the judicial precedents relied on by the assessee and the Ld.CIT(A). The judicial precedents collectively establish the principles regarding cessation of liability under Section 41(1) of the Act, which held that the onus is on the AO to prove the cessation or remission

BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed. 3. In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), he observed that the assessee had sought adornment on two occasions and accordingly, he passed an ex- parte order, upholding the order of the Assessing Officer with the following observations: “6. In view of the above, the undersigned is left with no option but to decide the case on the basis

BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed. 3. In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), he observed that the assessee had sought adornment on two occasions and accordingly, he passed an ex- parte order, upholding the order of the Assessing Officer with the following observations: “6. In view of the above, the undersigned is left with no option but to decide the case on the basis

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2005-06 . 2. Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee reads as under: 1 Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition made by AO of Rs. 2,70,80,490/- on account of adjustments

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 2008- 09 and 2009-10. Since, the issues raised in the appeals are stated ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2 to be identical and inter-connected, they are disposed of by this common order

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 2008- 09 and 2009-10. Since, the issues raised in the appeals are stated ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2 to be identical and inter-connected, they are disposed of by this common order

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 2008- 09 and 2009-10. Since, the issues raised in the appeals are stated ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2 to be identical and inter-connected, they are disposed of by this common order

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Years 2008- 09 and 2009-10. Since, the issues raised in the appeals are stated ITA No.73 & 76/Ahd/2020, and ITA No.51 & 52/Ahd/2020 DCIT Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2 to be identical and inter-connected, they are disposed of by this common order

TML INDUSTRIES LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

250/- which has been disallowed by the assessee in its return of income) 4. The assessee filed appeal against its addition. The CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations:- “During the course of assessment proceedings, the AR of the appellant was asked to provide the working of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 28(iv) 13 Disallowance of 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 6,74,517 6 Repair and 1291/Ahd/2016 2006-07 Assessee 4,39,663 5 Maintenance – 1783/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Assessee 10,03,378 4 Building ITA No.1772/Ahd/2015 and other 8 appeals Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT-DCIT (by Assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 28(iv) 13 Disallowance of 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 6,74,517 6 Repair and 1291/Ahd/2016 2006-07 Assessee 4,39,663 5 Maintenance – 1783/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Assessee 10,03,378 4 Building ITA No.1772/Ahd/2015 and other 8 appeals Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT-DCIT (by Assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 28(iv) 13 Disallowance of 2066/Ahd/2016 2005-06 Revenue 6,74,517 6 Repair and 1291/Ahd/2016 2006-07 Assessee 4,39,663 5 Maintenance – 1783/Ahd/2016 2007-08 Assessee 10,03,378 4 Building ITA No.1772/Ahd/2015 and other 8 appeals Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. ACIT-DCIT (by Assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years