THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VIJAY M. MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been challenged by the Department for A.Y. 2012- 13. 4. The appellant has further raised following additional ground for A.Ys. 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10: “(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has grievously erred in holding that other income

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

u/s. 271AAA of the Act for AY 2010-11. 14. First we take-up the appeals of the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. Briefly stated facts commonly for all the three years are that a search under Section

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

u/s. 271AAA of the Act for AY 2010-11. 14. First we take-up the appeals of the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. Briefly stated facts commonly for all the three years are that a search under Section

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

u/s. 271AAA of the Act for AY 2010-11. 14. First we take-up the appeals of the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. Briefly stated facts commonly for all the three years are that a search under Section

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NASCENT INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2828/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Ito M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. A-805, Sapath-Iv, Opp. Ahmedabad Karnavati Club, Ahmedabad- 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Cn3 670 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Mehul K. Patel, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

4. The AO subsequently issued a notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide dated 23-03-2015 for levying the penalty on account of furnishing inaccurate particular of income. 5. The assessee in compliance to the notice submitted that it had claimed depreciation on the lease datacentre after having a reliance on the judgment

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

120 (URO) and Digital Equipment India Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 103 TTJ 329. 5.2 The assessee further submitted that being a 100% EOU it has to file quarterly and annual reports of sales details with STPI in Software Export Declaration (SOFTEX) Form. After verifying and examining the details, the STPI grants certificate with regard to export, data link

SAI ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5),, BARODA

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

120/- in the Asstt.Year 2008-09, Rs.59,22,530/- in the Asstt.Year 2009-10 and Rs.41,25,775/- in the Asstt.Year 2010-11. The ld.counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing submitted a list of events which read as under: “1) Industrial Park Scheme Started on 16-8-2007 2) Appl. To C B D T for Notification

M/S.SAI ENTREPRISES,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2),, VADODARA

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

120/- in the Asstt.Year 2008-09, Rs.59,22,530/- in the Asstt.Year 2009-10 and Rs.41,25,775/- in the Asstt.Year 2010-11. The ld.counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing submitted a list of events which read as under: “1) Industrial Park Scheme Started on 16-8-2007 2) Appl. To C B D T for Notification

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ATRI DEVELOPERS,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act.” Revenues’s appeal ITA No.2855/A/2016: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief of Rs.5,98,26,995/- out of total addition of Rs.6,78,33,882/- made on account of undisclosed income. 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S. ATRI DEVELOPERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act.” Revenues’s appeal ITA No.2855/A/2016: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief of Rs.5,98,26,995/- out of total addition of Rs.6,78,33,882/- made on account of undisclosed income. 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have already been discussed and established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act. 1961 in the present set of circumstances which exists in this case. 5.8. Further, it has been held by no less than

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have already been discussed and established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act. 1961 in the present set of circumstances which exists in this case. 5.8. Further, it has been held by no less than

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have already been discussed and established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act. 1961 in the present set of circumstances which exists in this case. 5.8. Further, it has been held by no less than

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) have already been discussed and established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act. 1961 in the present set of circumstances which exists in this case. 5.8. Further, it has been held by no less than

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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 the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 45. The assessee vide letter dated 31-03-2020 has raised the additional ground of appeal

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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 the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 45. The assessee vide letter dated 31-03-2020 has raised the additional ground of appeal

SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(3),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the I T Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The brief facts of the case as per the issue involved in the grounds

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 32 of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by an assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession. Under this section, for getting depreciation, the following two conditions should be satisfied: (i) The asset in question should be owned by the assessee; and (ii) The asset should