ITO, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.RUSHABH VATIKA,, RAJKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty under the provision of Clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of undisclosed income refer to in sub-Section (1). 4. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. ITO vs. M/s. Rushabh Vatika Asst.Year

SUMMIT (INDIA) WATER TREATMENT & SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

penalty u/s. 271BA of the act cannot be levied. The ld. counsel has also referred CBDT Circular No. 3/2016 dated 10th March, 2016 in respect of type of cases to be referred to the TPO. The ld. counsel has contended that since form 3CEB manually filed was on record, therefore, it cannot be construed that assessing officer has not applied

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SHRI AKSHAY A. KOTHARI, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

271(1)(c) or u/s 271AAA. The AO during the assessment or during the penalty proceedings has not brought out any positive material either in the form of seized documents or otherwise to conclude or even to observe that the unaccounted income is earned in a manner different from what has been stated during 132(4). When seen

GSPC PIPAVAV POWER COMPANY LTD.-GPPC,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) be quashed. (iii) Such and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may justify.” 3. The fact in brief is that return of income declaring income at Rs. nil was filed on 28th Sep, 2012. The case of the assessee was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s

SAMIR CROP HEALTH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the act but the assessee has not made necessary compliance during the course of assessment proceedings. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the assessing officer has issued show cause notice on 4th Jan, 2013 to the assessee to explain why not the book result should be rejected since it had I.T.A No. 462/Ahd/2015

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is dismissed as the same is premature in nature and no appeal lies against the initiation of the proceedings u/s 274 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: i) "Whether, the Ld. Commissioner of Income

M/S. BAJAJ FOODS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are being initiated on this account. 19. ld. Counsel for the assessee further pointed out that the despite reiterating these contentions before the Ld. CIT(A) also. The same were also rejected for the same reasons by the Ld. CIT(A). He drew our attention

M/S. MID VALLEY HEALTH CARE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava&Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2524 & 2525/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15) Mid Valley Health Care Acit बनाम/ Cricle- 2(1)(2), Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 51, 5Th Floor, New York Tower, S.G. Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aae Cm7 777 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.” A.Ys. 2013-14 &2014-15 Ground No. 1:- Confirming disallowance of Rs. 10,28,141/- under Sec. 14A of the Act:- 3. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 26,15,624/- claimed as exempt from tax. The AO has further noticed that

M/S. MID VALLEY HEALTH CARE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava&Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2524 & 2525/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15) Mid Valley Health Care Acit बनाम/ Cricle- 2(1)(2), Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 51, 5Th Floor, New York Tower, S.G. Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aae Cm7 777 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.” A.Ys. 2013-14 &2014-15 Ground No. 1:- Confirming disallowance of Rs. 10,28,141/- under Sec. 14A of the Act:- 3. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 26,15,624/- claimed as exempt from tax. The AO has further noticed that

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ROSEBYS INTERIORS INDIA LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this Ground of appeal of the Department is dismissed

section 37(1) of the Act. However, AO did not accept the assessee’s contention and disallowed the above advertisement expenses claimed by the assessee by way of filing revised return of income on the ground that the assessee itself has classified the above expenditure as capital work in progress (CWIP) and accordingly, the same are capital in nature

ROSEBYS INTERIORS INDIA LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this Ground of appeal of the Department is dismissed

section 37(1) of the Act. However, AO did not accept the assessee’s contention and disallowed the above advertisement expenses claimed by the assessee by way of filing revised return of income on the ground that the assessee itself has classified the above expenditure as capital work in progress (CWIP) and accordingly, the same are capital in nature

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

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, 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

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