DECISION CRAFT ANALYTICS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1161 & 1162/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Decision Craft Analytics Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 601, Shahpath-Ii Circle-1 Vs. Opp. Rajpath Club Ahmedabad Sg Highway, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 5157 E .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Krupesh Patel, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.Dr

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also observed ITA Nos.1161 & 1162/Ahd/2015 Decision Craft Analytics Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Years - 2007-08 & 2008-09 that the assessee had not made any specific submission against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 7. Being aggrieved by the order

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. 56. At the outset, it was noticed that there was the delay in filing the CO by the assessee for 1195 days. The assessee in the affidavit dated 5 October 2018 submitted that the learned CIT (A) was pleased to allow the alternative claim of the assessee under section 10A

SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s. 40(a)(ia) of 7,43,709 the Act. 18 Disallowance bonus paid, bonus and 21,67,862/- gratuity paid 19 Disallowance of sundry balance written off 26,29,122 20 Disallowance of Patent expense 8,93,241 Total Assessed Income 4,03,62,998 i.e. Total Assessed Income 4,03,63,000 5. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s. 40(a)(ia) of 7,43,709 the Act. 18 Disallowance bonus paid, bonus and 21,67,862/- gratuity paid 19 Disallowance of sundry balance written off 26,29,122 20 Disallowance of Patent expense 8,93,241 Total Assessed Income 4,03,62,998 i.e. Total Assessed Income 4,03,63,000 5. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed

M/S. GANDHINAGAR TELERADS,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3184/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) M/S. Gandhinagar Telerads Ito, बनाम/ 314, Mangal Murti Park, Ward – 2, Vs. Sector – 8, Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar – 382 008 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg 9008 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

section 40(b) of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that it is discretionary & not mandatory for the appellant to make such a claim. It be so held now. 4. Levy of interest u/s 234B of the act is not justified. 5. Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant

NAYAB INTERNATIONAL,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3),, VADODARA

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

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. Your appellant craves the right to add or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. First, we take up the ground of appeal no. 3 of the appeal. 3. The issue raised in this ground of appeal is that the learned CIT (A) erred

THE ACIT, CICLE-3,, VADODARA vs. M/S. FINE LINE CIRCUITS COMPANY,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty levied by the assessing officer by observing as under:- “3.3.2. So far as levy of penalty on the adjustment of brought

KUNAL CHATURBHUJ NAGRANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-12,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1068/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

u/s 145 of the Act. The finding and analysis of the A.O. was found based on the facts and justified. 13.3 During the appellate proceeding, the appellant merely submitted the reply submitted before the A.O, and furnished an affidavit of Mr. Miresh Shah in support of his claim. 13.4 The contention of the appellant regarding affidavit of Shri Miresh Shah

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation

TEH DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR vs. METRO LINK EXPRESS FOR GANDHINAGAR AND AHMEDABAD MEGA CO. LTD, GANDHINAGAR

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

10A, Gandhingar-382010 PAN: AAGCM3807N (Cross Objection) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, & Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 21-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 27-07-2022 I.T.A No. 1754/Ahd/2019 & C.O. No. 38-Ahd-2014 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 DCIT vs. Metro Link Express for Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad Mega Company Limited

EFFECTIVE TELESERVICES PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3077/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-11) बनाम/ Effective Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Gandhinagar Circle, 1St Floor, It Tower Iv, Vs. Gandhinagar. Infocity, Nr. Infroda Circle, Gandhinagar – 382009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaa Ce9 318 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Dhinal Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Apporva Bharadwaj, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 25/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 13/05/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT-A erred in making upward transfer pricing adjustment on the services rendered to its AE for Rs. 1,67,98,967.00 only. 2. The assessee during the year under consideration has entered into certain international transactions with

MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified.” 7. 2. The Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 relate to the upward adjustment of Rs. 27,11,550/- in respect of transaction of sale of pesticides and pigments were not pressed by the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee at the time of hearing of the matter

GUJARAT STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal is allowed

10A. Gandhinagar- Gandhinagar 382010 (Respondent) PAN: AACCG2870P (Appellant) Appellant by : Ms. Arti N. Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR Date of hearing : 10-01-2022 Date of pronouncement : 23-02-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- These appeals relate to the same assessee , having been filed against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income

GUJARAT STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal is allowed

10A. Gandhinagar- Gandhinagar 382010 (Respondent) PAN: AACCG2870P (Appellant) Appellant by : Ms. Arti N. Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR Date of hearing : 10-01-2022 Date of pronouncement : 23-02-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- These appeals relate to the same assessee , having been filed against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income

GUJARAT STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal is allowed

10A. Gandhinagar- Gandhinagar 382010 (Respondent) PAN: AACCG2870P (Appellant) Appellant by : Ms. Arti N. Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR Date of hearing : 10-01-2022 Date of pronouncement : 23-02-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- These appeals relate to the same assessee , having been filed against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income