THE ADIT.,(INTNL.TAXN.), AHMEDABAD vs. JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006 & "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2001-2002

disallowance claimed under section 42 of Rs.4,58,84,791/- is admitted by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court under section 260A

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS)CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(SUDA), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of exemption as claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act to the tune of Rs.70,73,005/- is hereby quashed and addition made thereon is thus deleted. 6. In the result, assessee's appeal is thus allowed.” ACIT vs. Surat Urban Development Authority Asst.Year –2015-16 8. In the light of the decision rendered

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad

section 260A of the Act. “Whether, the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.7.70 crores made on account of disallowance

M/S. VAIBHAV CONSTRUCTION,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance was to be deleted - Held, yes [Para 3] [In favour of assessee] Vishal Developers (2014) 52 taxman.com 514 (Gujarat) Section 80-IB, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Profits and gains from industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings (Housing project) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee entered into a development agreement with co-operative Housing Societies

M/S. VAIBHAV CONSTRUCTION,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance was to be deleted - Held, yes [Para 3] [In favour of assessee] Vishal Developers (2014) 52 taxman.com 514 (Gujarat) Section 80-IB, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Profits and gains from industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings (Housing project) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee entered into a development agreement with co-operative Housing Societies

MARDIA COPPER EXTRUTIONS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 229/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1990-1991 M/S Mardia Copper Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, C/O Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), 105, Sakar-I, Near Gandhigram Railway Ahmedabad. Station, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabcm3848G

260A or an appeal to Ihe Supreme Conn under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

JT. CIT(OSD), TDS-CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

260A of the said Act. 5. The appellant in all the appeals has proposed the following substantial questions of law in the memorandum of the appeal:- (A) "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that the expenditure incurred on doctors cannot be classified as commission and therefore, section 194H of the Act does

JT. CIT(OSD), TDS-CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

260A of the said Act. 5. The appellant in all the appeals has proposed the following substantial questions of law in the memorandum of the appeal:- (A) "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that the expenditure incurred on doctors cannot be classified as commission and therefore, section 194H of the Act does

JT. CIT(OSD), TDS-CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

260A of the said Act. 5. The appellant in all the appeals has proposed the following substantial questions of law in the memorandum of the appeal:- (A) "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding that the expenditure incurred on doctors cannot be classified as commission and therefore, section 194H of the Act does

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) , AHMEDABAD vs. SUNIT SUDHIRBHAI CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) On The Quantum Addition, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition To Rs.4,71,46,684/- Only. Thus The Assessing Officer Levied Penalty Of Rs.2,80,88,610/- Being 60% Of Addition Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 271Aab Of The Act.

Disallowance of 2,29,79,570 The Ld. CIT(A) - interest expenditure has deleted the on bogus unsecured addition. loan , I.T.A Nos. 1474 & 1475/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Sunit Sudhirbhai Chokshi 4. Addition on account 3,10,475 The Ld. CIT(A) The Ld. ITAT of commission has confirmed has confirmed addition expenses

CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SUNIT SUDHIRBHAI CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) On The Quantum Addition, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition To Rs.4,71,46,684/- Only. Thus The Assessing Officer Levied Penalty Of Rs.2,80,88,610/- Being 60% Of Addition Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 271Aab Of The Act.

Disallowance of 2,29,79,570 The Ld. CIT(A) - interest expenditure has deleted the on bogus unsecured addition. loan , I.T.A Nos. 1474 & 1475/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 3 DCIT Vs. Sunit Sudhirbhai Chokshi 4. Addition on account 3,10,475 The Ld. CIT(A) The Ld. ITAT of commission has confirmed has confirmed addition expenses

SHRI JANI PARASMAL VAGHMAL (HUF),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1354/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Jain Parasmal Vaghmal(Huf), I.T.O., 27, Vijay Society, Vs. Ward-3(1)(5), New Khanderao Road, Vadodara. Baroda.

disallowed the exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. Asstt. Year 2010-11 4 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to the ld CIT(A). The assessee before the ld CIT(A) submits that it has not concealed any information on account of long term capital gain income rather it has disclosed all the transactions of long

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

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

section 37(1) of the Act. 6.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the said expenses have been incurred for the promotion and in furtherance of the Appellant's business activities and thus, allowable as deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

section 37(1) of the Act. 6.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the said expenses have been incurred for the promotion and in furtherance of the Appellant's business activities and thus, allowable as deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

section 37(1) of the Act. 6.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the said expenses have been incurred for the promotion and in furtherance of the Appellant's business activities and thus, allowable as deduction

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

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

section 37(1) of the Act. 6.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the said expenses have been incurred for the promotion and in furtherance of the Appellant's business activities and thus, allowable as deduction

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 54 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 2,48,49,050/- as well as not adjudicating the additional ground of appeal raised before him. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and filed his return of income declaring total income

SMT. RESHMIBEN P. KANUGO,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), VADODARA

In the result appeal filed the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2131/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Smt. Reshmiben P. Income Tax Kanugo, Officer, 26, Jawahar Society, Nr. Ward 3(1)(3), Bakrawadi, R.V. Desai Vadodara. Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390001. Pan: Azupk6721B 2. 2132/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Shri Alpesh P. Income Tax Kanugo(Huf), Officer, 26, Jawahar Society, Ward 3(1)(3), Nr. Bakrawadi, Ahmedabad. R.V. Desai Road, Vadodara-390001. Pan: Aajha5173P 3. 2133/Ahd/2018 2014-15 Shri Parasmal B. Kanugo Income Tax Officer, (Huf), Ward-3(1)(3), 26, Jawahar Society, Nr. Ahmedabad. Bakrawadi, R.V. Desai Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390001. Pan: Aakhp0126Q

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has challenged the order dated 21.10,2016 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B in ITA No.926/And/2015 for assessment year 2008-09, by proposing the following questions stated to be substantial questions of law: [A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal Is correct