K.P. WOVEN PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 K.P. Woven Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 13-B, Navbharat Society, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2) Usmanpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380013. Pan: Aaeck6307M

disallowance of entire share premium which is against the rules and provisions of section 56(2] (viib). AO is therefore

M/S. GAURAV HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, VADODARA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

56(2)(viib) of the Act is be held not sustainable in law and we direct deletion of the same. 13. Appeal of ground no. 1(a) & 1(b) is accordingly allowed. 14. Ground No.2 reads as under: 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-1, Vadodara has erred in law and in facts in disallowing an amount

CANPAC TRENDS PVT. LTD.,BAVLA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed the claim,\nciting the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va).\n(ii) Addition under Section 56(2)(viib

AQUALFIL POLYMERS CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

section 40(a)(ia). . 28. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset itself stated that she did not wish to press this ground considering the smallness of the quantum involved. 29. In view of the above, ground no. 3 is dismissed. 30. Ground no. 4 reads as under: 4. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. AQUAFIL POLYMERS CO. PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

section 40(a)(ia). . 28. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset itself stated that she did not wish to press this ground considering the smallness of the quantum involved. 29. In view of the above, ground no. 3 is dismissed. 30. Ground no. 4 reads as under: 4. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred

AQUALFIL POLYMERS CO. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

section 40(a)(ia). . 28. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset itself stated that she did not wish to press this ground considering the smallness of the quantum involved. 29. In view of the above, ground no. 3 is dismissed. 30. Ground no. 4 reads as under: 4. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred

NEPRA ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTINS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs.1,97,068/- claimed by the\nassessee.\n(ii) Addition of Rs.95,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act in respect of\nshare application money received.\n(iii) Alternative addition of Rs.70,99,350/- under section 56(2)(viib

GUJARAT INFRAPIPES PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance based on the closing balance of CWIP at the rate of 12%. While doing so, the AO has ignored the availability of own funds and wrongly assumed that the addition to CWIP was entirely out of borrowed funds. 8.1 Therefore, in view of the wrong application of facts by the Ld.AO and judicial precedents on the above subject

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INFRA PIPES PVT. LTD.,, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance based on the closing balance of CWIP at the rate of 12%. While doing so, the AO has ignored the availability of own funds and wrongly assumed that the addition to CWIP was entirely out of borrowed funds. 8.1 Therefore, in view of the wrong application of facts by the Ld.AO and judicial precedents on the above subject

VISHAL BALVANTRAI AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.226/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 249 New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-1 V/S. O/S. Raipur Gate Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adbpa 4462 G (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

disallowance under Section 14A, thereby rendering the assessment order erroneous. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS), specifically to examine the "deduction from Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal vs. The Pr.CIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 income from other sources" under Section 57 of the Act. As per CBDT Circulars and guidelines

V.S. META CAST PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 V.S. Metacast P.Lttd. Dcit, Cir.4(1)(2) A-201, Mondeal Square Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Honest Restaurant Prahaladnagar. Pan : Aaecv 1729 L

disallowance of additional depreciation claim on DG set of Rs.99,473/-, (iii) addition of Rs.6,73,600/- under section 56(2)(viib

SUZUKI SUITINGS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of ROC expenses of Rs.2 lakhs. 3. Ground no. 1, it was stated before us by the ld. Counsel for the assessee were general in nature and are therefore not being dealt with by us. 4. Ground no. 2 .1 and 2.2, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated related to addition made of Rs. 7,02,500/- u/s. 56

DEXTER CONSULTANCY PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4) NOW WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of Rs.1,75,385/- towards employees contribution to PF/ESI fund filed belatedly. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.38,77,497/- u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act in respect of share premium. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.17,869/- towards interest received by the assessee under Section

VARIA ALUMINUM PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance under Section 35D and addition under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment

M/S. UNIWRAP SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4)., VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2555/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Uniwrap Systems P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-2(1)(4) Plot No.383, Gidc Vs Baroda. Manusar, Tal: Savli Vadodara 391 175. Pan : Aabcu 0130 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri O.P. Pathak, Sr.Dr

disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.4,190/-. The ld.counsel for the assessee did not press this ground of appeal, hence, it is dismissed. 3. In ground no.1, the assessee has taken three sub-grounds. It has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,42,640/- under section 56(2)(viib