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

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

1,08,53,589 2 Employer’s 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10853589 9 Contribution to PF (Employees Contributio n) 3 Disallowance of PF 1772/Ahd/2015 2002-03 Assessee 9,83,308 3 Damages under 1773/Ahd/2015 2003-04 Assessee 10,79,540 3 Section 14B of the PF Act 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10,36,953 3 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue

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

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

1,08,53,589 2 Employer’s 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10853589 9 Contribution to PF (Employees Contributio n) 3 Disallowance of PF 1772/Ahd/2015 2002-03 Assessee 9,83,308 3 Damages under 1773/Ahd/2015 2003-04 Assessee 10,79,540 3 Section 14B of the PF Act 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10,36,953 3 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue

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 :

1,08,53,589 2 Employer’s 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10853589 9 Contribution to PF (Employees Contributio n) 3 Disallowance of PF 1772/Ahd/2015 2002-03 Assessee 9,83,308 3 Damages under 1773/Ahd/2015 2003-04 Assessee 10,79,540 3 Section 14B of the PF Act 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10,36,953 3 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

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

1,08,53,589 2 Employer’s 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10853589 9 Contribution to PF (Employees Contributio n) 3 Disallowance of PF 1772/Ahd/2015 2002-03 Assessee 9,83,308 3 Damages under 1773/Ahd/2015 2003-04 Assessee 10,79,540 3 Section 14B of the PF Act 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10,36,953 3 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue

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

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

1,08,53,589 2 Employer’s 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10853589 9 Contribution to PF (Employees Contributio n) 3 Disallowance of PF 1772/Ahd/2015 2002-03 Assessee 9,83,308 3 Damages under 1773/Ahd/2015 2003-04 Assessee 10,79,540 3 Section 14B of the PF Act 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10,36,953 3 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue

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 :

1,08,53,589 2 Employer’s 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10853589 9 Contribution to PF (Employees Contributio n) 3 Disallowance of PF 1772/Ahd/2015 2002-03 Assessee 9,83,308 3 Damages under 1773/Ahd/2015 2003-04 Assessee 10,79,540 3 Section 14B of the PF Act 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10,36,953 3 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

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

1,08,53,589 2 Employer’s 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10853589 9 Contribution to PF (Employees Contributio n) 3 Disallowance of PF 1772/Ahd/2015 2002-03 Assessee 9,83,308 3 Damages under 1773/Ahd/2015 2003-04 Assessee 10,79,540 3 Section 14B of the PF Act 1290/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Assessee 10,36,953 3 1594/Ahd/2016 2004-05 Revenue

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1), it is deemed that it has deducted and paid the tax on such sums on the date of filing of return of income by the concerned payee as referred in the above stated proviso. The co-ordinate bench as well as hon’ble Delhi high court have accordingly applied the above stated proviso with retrospective effect by holding

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1), it is deemed that it has deducted and paid the tax on such sums on the date of filing of return of income by the concerned payee as referred in the above stated proviso. The co-ordinate bench as well as hon’ble Delhi high court have accordingly applied the above stated proviso with retrospective effect by holding

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1), it is deemed that it has deducted and paid the tax on such sums on the date of filing of return of income by the concerned payee as referred in the above stated proviso. The co-ordinate bench as well as hon’ble Delhi high court have accordingly applied the above stated proviso with retrospective effect by holding

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

1 I have considered the above facts and all the record furnished by the appellant. Looking to the previous records of the appellant, it is seen that the appellant is infact A-rated government contractor and as per the records he is also associated with Mumbai Mahanagar Palika and other government agencies as well as companies for carrying

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

256,519 222,675 33,844 Residential Building 2 Depr. On Data 3,422,521/- 2,970,974 451,547 Processing Machines 3 Depr. On Motor 1,844,880 1,601,477 243,403 cars 4 Advertisement 20,678,311 17,950,137 2,728,174 Expenses 5 Dep. On Account of SAP-R/3 Cost (60% of Rs.3

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

1)(iii) of the Act, in view of the judgment of I.T.A Nos. 166/Ahd/22 & 231/Ahd/24 and Ors. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21 Page No 16 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. . vs. DCIT Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs. Amod Stamping Pvt. Ltd. reported in 223 Taxman 256 [Guj] wherein it was held as follows: “… 12.1. Similar