MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, the assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is reproduced as under: "5. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, leamed counsel

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL

Accordingly dismissed.\n18.9 Based on the findings and conclusions set out hereinabove, the\nappeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by\nthe assessee is partly allowed

u/s 143(3) of the Act,\nwhereas the assessee has filed a cross-objection challenging the\nconfirmation of two other disallowances sustained by the CIT(A).\nFacts of the Case\n2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and\ntrading of pharmaceutical products and development of pharmaceutical\nformulation technologies. For the year under consideration, the assessee\nfiled

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has no legs to stand on and is liable to be deleted. 4. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the ruling for ready reference. We observe that ITAT in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated

UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

u/s 143(3) of the Act, whereas the assessee has filed a cross-objection challenging the confirmation of two other disallowances sustained by the CIT(A). Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of pharmaceutical products and development of pharmaceutical formulation technologies. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed

TEJAS GHANSHYAMBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

254/- by disallowing the claim of deductions u/s. 54EC and u/s. 54F and demanded tax thereon. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal against that assessment order which was partly allowed. It is thereafter the Assessing Officer proceeded with the penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied minimum penalty of Rs.1,70,414/- u/s. 271(1

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

254 read with section 143(3) of the Act. During these proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued summons under sections 131/133(6) of the Act to 12 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases. Based on the responses received and the lack of satisfactory evidences in most cases, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

254 read with section 143(3) of the Act. During these proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued summons under sections 131/133(6) of the Act to 12 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases. Based on the responses received and the lack of satisfactory evidences in most cases, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

254 read with section 143(3) of the Act. During these proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued summons under sections 131/133(6) of the Act to 12 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases. Based on the responses received and the lack of satisfactory evidences in most cases, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

254 read with section 143(3) of the Act. During these proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued summons under sections 131/133(6) of the Act to 12 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases. Based on the responses received and the lack of satisfactory evidences in most cases, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed

JAP AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) PREVIOUSLY ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

section 254 on 24.02.2025 to correctly give effect to the Tribunal’s order in the quantum appeal. The assessee has further placed on record that it had filed an application for rectification of the order giving effect to the CIT(A) order on 27.02.2025, and till the date of filing of the present appeal, no order has been passed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

254 ITR 445 (MAD) 2002. ITA Nos. 484 to 486/Ahd/2023 (ACIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Inferacontract Pvt. Ltd.) A.Ys.– 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 - 8 - 2.13.2 C.V. Bhanumurthy Reddy vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Bangalore. (2015) 53 taxmann.com 110 (Bangalore-Trib.) 2.13.3 John Energy Ltd. vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Ahmedabad [2015) 9 taxmann.com 75 (Ahmedabad Trib.) 2.13.4 H. D Enterprise

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

254 ITR 445 (MAD) 2002. ITA Nos. 484 to 486/Ahd/2023 (ACIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Inferacontract Pvt. Ltd.) A.Ys.– 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 - 8 - 2.13.2 C.V. Bhanumurthy Reddy vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Bangalore. (2015) 53 taxmann.com 110 (Bangalore-Trib.) 2.13.3 John Energy Ltd. vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Ahmedabad [2015) 9 taxmann.com 75 (Ahmedabad Trib.) 2.13.4 H. D Enterprise

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

254 ITR 445 (MAD) 2002. ITA Nos. 484 to 486/Ahd/2023 (ACIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Inferacontract Pvt. Ltd.) A.Ys.– 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 - 8 - 2.13.2 C.V. Bhanumurthy Reddy vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Bangalore. (2015) 53 taxmann.com 110 (Bangalore-Trib.) 2.13.3 John Energy Ltd. vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Ahmedabad [2015) 9 taxmann.com 75 (Ahmedabad Trib.) 2.13.4 H. D Enterprise

SMT. MAYA K. DHARWANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2094/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Maya K. Dharwani The Income Tax Officer Block No.88, B Ward बनाम/ Ward-7(2)(3) Opp. Railway Station Ahmedabad V/S. Kuber Nagar Ahmedabad - 382 340 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aefpd 1506 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. Facts of the case: 3. The assessee is an individual having interest on loans and income from house property as main source of income. The assessee filed her return of income

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

254 (1) of 1.T. Act (2) by not providing evidence & material used w.r.t. alleged changes (page 6377) (3) by not providing opportunity of being heard (Page 58-62), violating principles of justice as per directions of Hon’ble ITAT's order dt. 8-6-05 & 7-9-05. No such evidence has been filed before Hon’ble Criminal Court/High

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

254 (1) of 1.T. Act (2) by not providing evidence & material used w.r.t. alleged changes (page 6377) (3) by not providing opportunity of being heard (Page 58-62), violating principles of justice as per directions of Hon’ble ITAT's order dt. 8-6-05 & 7-9-05. No such evidence has been filed before Hon’ble Criminal Court/High

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. HEUBACH COLOUR PVT. LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by AO to the assessee, and were claimed by AO to have been duly served on the assessee. The AO observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Chemicals. The AO also observed that the Gross Profit during the year declared by the assessee was 20.43% as against

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, BHARUCH vs. M/S. HEUBACH COLOUR PVT. LTD.,, ANKLESHWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by AO to the assessee, and were claimed by AO to have been duly served on the assessee. The AO observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Chemicals. The AO also observed that the Gross Profit during the year declared by the assessee was 20.43% as against