SHRI RAVINDRASINH N.GOHIL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-1(1),, BHAVNAGAR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 147 of the Act. Resultantly, the case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 19.04.2012 upon the assessee. In appeal, the issue of reopening was challenged by the assessee along with other grounds that such proceeding was wrongly initiated by the Assessing Officer. Further that, no reasons for such reopening has been provided

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned C1T(A) has erred in law and fact by not quashing he assessment order, as the learned AO has not complied the provisions of section

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned C1T(A) has erred in law and fact by not quashing he assessment order, as the learned AO has not complied the provisions of section

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

197-200 for A.Y 2014-15. 14. He further contended that the Revenues contention that the pipelines were constructed in tranches and therefore it was necessary for the assessee to establish connection of the newly added tranches with the Grid for the purposes of demonstrating user of the asset for claiming depreciation, was not based on correct appreciation of facts

SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

197-200 for A.Y 2014-15. 14. He further contended that the Revenues contention that the pipelines were constructed in tranches and therefore it was necessary for the assessee to establish connection of the newly added tranches with the Grid for the purposes of demonstrating user of the asset for claiming depreciation, was not based on correct appreciation of facts

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR DEVICHAND LODHA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).The Ld.Cit(A) Has Sustained The Impugned Penalty.

section 194A of the act. Thereafter the assessing officer has referred the case to the JCIT,TDS Range for initiation of penalty u/s 271 C of the act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee has brought to the I.T.A No. 942/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 2 Shri Ashokkumar Devichand Lodha vs. ACIT notice of the JCIT

SHRI ANILBHAI HIRALAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

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. 2.1 The assessee vide letter dated 07/09/2022 has filed the additional ground of appeal which is reproduced

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

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 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

RAMILABEN DINESHBHAI MORADIYA,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

U/S. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not adjusting for addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs. 6664/- as interest income. Ramilaben Dineshbhai Mordiya vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– 5. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D Α.Υ. 2013-14 6. The assessee company had claimed exempt income aggregating to Rs. 38,73,426/- as share of profit from partnership firms and Rs.45,012/- as dividend. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made substantial investments in non-current investments of Rs.3

SHRI VIMAL RAMNIKLAL AMBANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings under section 271(1 )(c) is initiated. 7.9. Since Section 14A read with Rule 8D is clearly applicable, the disallowance under section 14A will be restricted to total claim of administrative expenses after excluding the above sum of rupees 7,98,6777-. There wjjl be net enhancement by rupees 1736914-1516036=Rs. 2,20,878/-. Being aggrieved

SHRI VIMAL RAMNIKLAL AMBANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings under section 271(1 )(c) is initiated. 7.9. Since Section 14A read with Rule 8D is clearly applicable, the disallowance under section 14A will be restricted to total claim of administrative expenses after excluding the above sum of rupees 7,98,6777-. There wjjl be net enhancement by rupees 1736914-1516036=Rs. 2,20,878/-. Being aggrieved

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

TARPAWANKUMAR RAMPRASAD SANDHIR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the income tax officer is bad in law and requires to be cancelled. 2. In law and in the facts as well as the circumstances of the appellant's case, the A.O. has erred in making additions for the assessment year 2016-17 when no such additions were warranted. Those

PANASONIC ENERGY INDIA CO.LTD,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - III, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)") erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 4, Baroda (hereinafter referred