ATUL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

293/- Gross total income: Rs. 3,83,37,613/- Less: Donation u/s. 80IA Rs. 9,92,000/- Deduction u/s. 80IA reduced to Rs. 6,26,51,076/- Rs. 6,36,43,076/- Restricted up Rs. 3,83,37,613/- Total assessed income: NIL I.T.A No. 2406/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2005-06 Page No 3 Atul Ltd. vs. DCIT 3. Thereafter, ld. Counsel

M/S.HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

293 wherein it was held as under: Section 24, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income from house property

THE DCIT, BARODA CIRCLE-1,, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assesse and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property Rs.9,036/-, income from other sources Rs.1,25,40,914/- and business loss of Rs.10,26,63,568/-. The Assessing Officer made addition in respect of buying commission to Teknoserve (Jersey) Limited amounting to Rs.19,27,498/- as per the provision of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also disallowed interest on bonds issued

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assesse and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property Rs.9,036/-, income from other sources Rs.1,25,40,914/- and business loss of Rs.10,26,63,568/-. The Assessing Officer made addition in respect of buying commission to Teknoserve (Jersey) Limited amounting to Rs.19,27,498/- as per the provision of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also disallowed interest on bonds issued

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 311/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 2. 2176/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 3. 2173/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 4. 165/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 5. 287/Ahd/2017 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 6-7 520 & 2013-14 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., 521/Ahd/2018 & Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 8-9 604 & 605/ 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Ahd/2018 & Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K

293 ITR 357. 28. In our considered opinion, the amortization merely represents a timing difference and since the bank is consistently making profits and paying tax at the highest rate without claiming any tax holiday benefit, it can be safely concluded that the method followed Is revenue neutral. We draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions, is identified, and then such price is adjusted to account for differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the price in the o pen market. Usually loan

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessees are allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

House, 2nd floor, Ahmedabad Nr. Natraj Cinena, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAATI0762K Appellant by : Shri Ashwin Shah & Bhadresh Gandhakwala, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. ITA Nos. 611 & 2186/Ahd/2018 & Others. 2 . A.Y. 2014-15 (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 07 -08-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 16 -09-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. These

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT held that the Assessing Officer was required to take sale consideration at Rs. 2,32,04,000/- as determined by the DVO for computation of long term capital gain and not as per sale deed of Rs. 2,02,50,000/- and the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 31st

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE) -1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, Opp. Central Circle-1(4), Pakwan-II, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054 [PAN No.AAGCM4615E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No.1702/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mahalaxmi Infracontract Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 816-817, Binori B Square-III, Income Tax, Nr. Tradebulls, Sindhu Bhavan Central Circle-1(4), Road, Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAGCM4615E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Dhinal Shah

MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, Opp. Central Circle-1(4), Pakwan-II, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054 [PAN No.AAGCM4615E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No.1702/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mahalaxmi Infracontract Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 816-817, Binori B Square-III, Income Tax, Nr. Tradebulls, Sindhu Bhavan Central Circle-1(4), Road, Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAGCM4615E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Dhinal Shah

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

House, Opp. Central Circle-1(4), Pakwan-II, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054 [PAN No.AAGCM4615E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No.1702/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mahalaxmi Infracontract Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 816-817, Binori B Square-III, Income Tax, Nr. Tradebulls, Sindhu Bhavan Central Circle-1(4), Road, Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAGCM4615E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Dhinal Shah

THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KASTURBEN JAGJIVANBHAI BHALODIA CHARITABLE TRUST,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAATL1730A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R. Shri Prakash R. Udeshi, A.R. / ""यथ" क" ओर से / Written Submission Respondent by : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of 29/03/2019 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of 30/04/2019 Pronouncement आदेश

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

House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment

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

House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment

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

House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment

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

House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment

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

House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment

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

House Pvt. Limited. Vs CIT 157 ITR 86 (SC) and further failed to take note of the fact that, in allowing the expenditure in earlier years, undue reliance was placed on the formal recitals in the agreements with the associate concerns presenting the lump sum payment for acquisition of technical knowhow as periodical payment

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. JAMNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAMNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

House, CBDT issued a Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 19th December 2008 explaining the amendment as under: 3. The newly inserted proviso to section 2 (15) will apply only to entities whose purpose is advancement of any other object of general public utility ie.. the fourth limb of the definition of charitable purpose contained in section