SHITAL VIPULKUMAR DHOLAKIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance under Section 40A(3) was made without adequate investigation and without establishing the foundational facts necessary to invoke the provision. The Tribunal noted a lack of proper enquiry into the banking trail and financial transactions of the suppliers.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "40A(3)", "143(3)", "133(6)", "250(4)", "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

section 270A (9) of the Act viz. (a) misrepresentation of suppression of facts and (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence. Further, we observe that the AO has disallowed the sum of Rs.68,277/- u/s.143(3

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

3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has held to consider the interest on loans raised by erstwhile GEB for the purpose of disallowance under section 14A of the I T Act, 1961. It is submitted that the disallowance is uncalled

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

3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has held to consider the interest on loans raised by erstwhile GEB for the purpose of disallowance under section 14A of the I T Act, 1961. It is submitted that the disallowance is uncalled

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. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had under-reported its income within the meaning of section 270A(2) of the Act and the case was not covered by the exception provided under section 270A(6) of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty of ₹3

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3)(1)\nVs.\nAhmedabad.\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by\nShri Divyang Shah, AR\nRevenue by\nShri Umesh Kumar Agrawal,\nSr.DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing\n: 23/07/2025\nघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025\nआदेश/ORDER\nPER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM:\nThis appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order\ndated 20.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner

KOSHAMBH MULTITRED PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

3) of section 270A.” 10. As per the said sub section, such claims of education cess not allowable on account of the retrospective amendment but allowed earlier, were deemed to be under reported income for purposes of levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. However, the proviso to the sub section carved an exception providing immunity from the levy

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

3 to section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. Consequently,\npenalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act were initiated, and penalty\nof Rs.34,98,290/- was levied on account of alleged under-reporting of income.\nIn appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the claim was made\nbased on judicial pronouncements prevailing at the time of filing

NARAYANBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming penalty of Rs 4,75,800/- u/s.270A of the 1.T. Act 1961 levied by Ld. AO as appellant case falls under Section 270A(6)(a) of the Act, i.e., exception to underreported income

GUJARAT ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

270A of the Act, respectively. ITA Nos.1179 & 1180/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18 (for both)) Gujarat Energy Development Agency vs. DCIT Page 2 of 13 2. As the two appeals pertain to the same A.Y., both the matters were heard together and are being adjudicated vide this common order for the sake of convenience. We will first take up the appeal

GUJARAT ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

270A of the Act, respectively. ITA Nos.1179 & 1180/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18 (for both)) Gujarat Energy Development Agency vs. DCIT Page 2 of 13 2. As the two appeals pertain to the same A.Y., both the matters were heard together and are being adjudicated vide this common order for the sake of convenience. We will first take up the appeal

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)

3 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. . vs. DCIT (iii) Interest income on IT Refund of Rs.10,49,47,929/- (iv) Interest income treated as “other sources” of Rs.13,36,99,000/- (v) Dividend Income exempt u/s. 10(34/35) of Rs.12,07,96,095/- (vi) Adjustment in Book Profit under 115JB including the disallowance u/s. 14A. 4. Aggrieved against the assessment

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

3 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. . vs. DCIT (iii) Interest income on IT Refund of Rs.10,49,47,929/- (iv) Interest income treated as “other sources” of Rs.13,36,99,000/- (v) Dividend Income exempt u/s. 10(34/35) of Rs.12,07,96,095/- (vi) Adjustment in Book Profit under 115JB including the disallowance u/s. 14A. 4. Aggrieved against the assessment

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)

3 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. . vs. DCIT (iii) Interest income on IT Refund of Rs.10,49,47,929/- (iv) Interest income treated as “other sources” of Rs.13,36,99,000/- (v) Dividend Income exempt u/s. 10(34/35) of Rs.12,07,96,095/- (vi) Adjustment in Book Profit under 115JB including the disallowance u/s. 14A. 4. Aggrieved against the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, 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)

3 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. . vs. DCIT (iii) Interest income on IT Refund of Rs.10,49,47,929/- (iv) Interest income treated as “other sources” of Rs.13,36,99,000/- (v) Dividend Income exempt u/s. 10(34/35) of Rs.12,07,96,095/- (vi) Adjustment in Book Profit under 115JB including the disallowance u/s. 14A. 4. Aggrieved against the assessment

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 for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3

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 for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3

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 for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3