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

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

7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in charging 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

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:

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at all” 3. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO by allowing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Mahavir Prasadassessment Year : 2011-12 Ananya Finance For Inclusive The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Growth P Ltd. Ambawadi 401, Shaan, Op: M.J. Library Ahmedabad 380015. Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aahca 8023 D

u/s 12A of the Act, claiming exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Micro Finance Division (MFD) of FWWB was started three decades back. Indian Foundation For Inclusive Growth (IFIG) is a trust registered under the Documents and Registration Act,1908 ,and was formed on 13-03-2009, out of corpus funds from FWWB.It