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

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Disallowance of Weighted Deduction under 65,09,81,251 Section 35(2AB) 6 Capitalization of Interest to Capital Work-in- 11,29,21,996 Progress (CWIP) under Section 36(1

MAHENDRA PATEL BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to the provident fund. The said ground is accordingly treated as not pressed and is dismissed as such in case of all the appeals.\n6.\nDisallowance under section 37(1):\n6.1 In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted from

VARUN SATYAPAL SINGHAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3( NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That He Shall Not Be Pressing For Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Of His

Section 40A(2)(b) would not permit disallowance when there was no finding the effect that the labour charges paid were in excess of the fair market charges and that the authorities below disallowed the labour charges without ascertaining the fair market value of the same.” 12.3. Accordingly, in view of the facts of the instant case, we observe that

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

1 Zao Torrent Pharma 20,51,66,850/- 08-08-2012 28-03-2013 2 Zao Torrent Pharma 15,19,72,500/- 16-11-2011 18-05-2012 55.1 The TPO found that as per the provision of FEMA 1999 and RBI master circular No. 15/2014-15 dated 01-07-2014, the process of allotment of shares/equity instrument shall be completed

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

251(1)(a) has held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred on facts and in law in not directing the Assessing Officer to rectify order passed u/s 154 in view of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court holding

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] erred in fact and in law in passing an order beyond its jurisdiction. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in invoking provisions of section 251(2) of the Act and enhancing the scope of set aside proceedings. 3. The learned

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] erred in fact and in law in passing an order beyond its jurisdiction. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in invoking provisions of section 251(2) of the Act and enhancing the scope of set aside proceedings. 3. The learned

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] erred in fact and in law in passing an order beyond its jurisdiction. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in invoking provisions of section 251(2) of the Act and enhancing the scope of set aside proceedings. 3. The learned

INOX INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2000-2001 and other years before us, on the above two issues which were argued before us

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] erred in fact and in law in passing an order beyond its jurisdiction. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in invoking provisions of section 251(2) of the Act and enhancing the scope of set aside proceedings. 3. The learned

DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AADINATH DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80-IBA of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assesee had taken unsecured loan of Rs. 1,43,82,420/-, however, out of the same, unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 1,37,90,033/- remained unexplained. Accordingly, the same were added as income of the assessee under Section

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

1), Ahmedabad [PAN No.ABYPP8048A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hemanshu Shah, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 08.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 15.02.2024 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JM: Both the appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short

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

1), Ahmedabad [PAN No.ABYPP8048A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hemanshu Shah, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 08.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 15.02.2024 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JM: Both the appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

1,31,02,916/- made by the learned A.O. towards depreciation additionally allowed on account of disallowance of Section 42, as allowed by the then learned AO, erroneously treated as addition by the learned A O, be kindly deleted and the said amount be kindly granted as deduction from the assessed income. 5. The appellant reserves its right

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

1,31,02,916/- made by the learned A.O. towards depreciation additionally allowed on account of disallowance of Section 42, as allowed by the then learned AO, erroneously treated as addition by the learned A O, be kindly deleted and the said amount be kindly granted as deduction from the assessed income. 5. The appellant reserves its right

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

1,31,02,916/- made by the learned A.O. towards depreciation additionally allowed on account of disallowance of Section 42, as allowed by the then learned AO, erroneously treated as addition by the learned A O, be kindly deleted and the said amount be kindly granted as deduction from the assessed income. 5. The appellant reserves its right

GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

1,31,02,916/- made by the learned A.O. towards depreciation additionally allowed on account of disallowance of Section 42, as allowed by the then learned AO, erroneously treated as addition by the learned A O, be kindly deleted and the said amount be kindly granted as deduction from the assessed income. 5. The appellant reserves its right

TANDEM DATA PROCESSING PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, since on his part the assessee had made payment within the due date prescribed under the respective Act and it was only on account of a technical glitches, there was a one day delay in credit of such amount to the respective account of the PF/ESIC authorities. 9. In the case

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 21-12-2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) for the Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17 and 2017-18. The primary challenge is against the addition of Rs.1,16,49,66,875/- and Rs.90

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 21-12-2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) for the Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17 and 2017-18. The primary challenge is against the addition of Rs.1,16,49,66,875/- and Rs.90