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

disallowance of such expenses now made in assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act would tantamount to under reporting of the income as per the provisions of section 270A(2) of the Act. The provision of section are reproduced by us above , and are being reproduced again for clarity: ITA No.1739 and 225/Ahd/2024 11 270A. (1

ISHIT KAMLESHBHAI SHETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance.\nSubsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty\nproceedings under section 270A of the Act by issuance of notice dated\n11.03.2023. In response, the assessee submitted that there was no\nconcealment or misreporting of income, and that the omission to file\nthe return under section 139(1

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, 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: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

1), Vadodara dated 28.05.2021 under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2018-19. Since the issues involved in ITA Nos.139&178/Ahd/2023 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT Asst.Year– 2018-19 these appeals are arising out of the same orders, these are heard analogously and are being

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-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: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

1), Vadodara dated 28.05.2021 under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2018-19. Since the issues involved in ITA Nos.139&178/Ahd/2023 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT Asst.Year– 2018-19 these appeals are arising out of the same orders, these are heard analogously and are being

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance to book profit under section 115JB, relying on Explanation 1(f), and completed assessment by computing MAT income at ₹318.57 crore, which was higher than income under normal provisions. Penalty proceedings under section 270A

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance to book profit under section 115JB, relying on Explanation 1(f), and completed assessment by computing MAT income at ₹318.57 crore, which was higher than income under normal provisions. Penalty proceedings under section 270A

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance to book profit under section 115JB, relying on Explanation 1(f), and completed assessment by computing MAT income at ₹318.57 crore, which was higher than income under normal provisions. Penalty proceedings under section 270A

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance to book profit under section 115JB, relying on Explanation 1(f), and completed assessment by computing MAT income at ₹318.57 crore, which was higher than income under normal provisions. Penalty proceedings under section 270A

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance to book profit under section 115JB, relying on Explanation 1(f), and completed assessment by computing MAT income at ₹318.57 crore, which was higher than income under normal provisions. Penalty proceedings under section 270A

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance to book profit under section 115JB, relying on Explanation 1(f), and completed assessment by computing MAT income at ₹318.57 crore, which was higher than income under normal provisions. Penalty proceedings under section 270A

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT , BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

disallowance to book profit under section\n115JB, relying on Explanation 1(f), and completed assessment by\ncomputing MAT income at ₹318.57 crore, which was higher than income\nunder normal provisions. Penalty proceedings under section 270A

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

disallowance to book profit under section\n115JB, relying on Explanation 1(f), and completed assessment by\ncomputing MAT income at ₹318.57 crore, which was higher than income\nunder normal provisions. Penalty proceedings under section 270A

INFOANALYTICA CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty u/s

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

disallowance made by the AO provision of section 270A(9)(a) or 270A(a)(c) of the Act are not attracted. Therefore, to conclude looking into the facts of the assessee’s case, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.270(A) of the Act, on account of failure on the part of the AO in giving

SHREE SWATI TEXDYES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance during assessment. The ITAT held that since there was no concealment or misreporting and the assessee had even withdrawn the claim of cess deduction before completion of assessment and applied for immunity under section 270AA, penalty for under-reporting and misreporting under section 270A of the Act was held to be unjustified 20. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions

THE AHMEDABAD DISTRICT CO.OP. BANK LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. In the instant case, the penalty has been levied for disallowance of the\ndeduction of Rs.50,05,571/- claimed towards Health and Education Cess. The\nclaim was made in the return filed on 31.12.2020. The disallowance was based\non the insertion of Explanation 3 to section 40(a)(ii) by the Finance Act, 2022,\nwith retrospective effect from

PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270A of the Act for ready reference:- “(1) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under-reported his income shall be liable to pay a penalty in addition to tax, if any, on the under-reported income

R. K. INDUSTRIES UNIT- II LLP,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokarasstt. Year: 2016-17 R.K. Industries Unit- Ii Llp Assistant 3Rd Floor Shree Ram House, Vs. Commissioner Of Khergada Street, Khargate, Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar – 364 001 Bhavnagar – 364 002 Pan: Aadfr 4127 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hiren Trivedi, Ar Assessee By : Revenue By Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr

disallowance of Rs. 2,88,13,592/- under section 36(1)(iii). The levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D and initiation of penalty under section 270A

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, 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. The interest paid on working capital borrowing of Rs.1.59 lacs will not be considered for making disallowance out of interest expenses. 2. If the disallowance u/s14A r.w.r. 8D computed in view of above directions comes to less than the dividend income of 1207.96/- crores treated as exempt by the AO, then instead of making disallowance, the dividend income shall

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. The interest paid on working capital borrowing of Rs.1.59 lacs will not be considered for making disallowance out of interest expenses. 2. If the disallowance u/s14A r.w.r. 8D computed in view of above directions comes to less than the dividend income of 1207.96/- crores treated as exempt by the AO, then instead of making disallowance, the dividend income shall