ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1817/Ahd/2016 2012-13 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Arvind Mills Premises, Ahmedabad. Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan No. Aaach7252A 2. 2056/Ahd/2016 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Arvind Lifestyle Circle-1(1)(2), Brands Ltd., Ahmedabad. 3. 2377/Ahd/2017 2013-14 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad. 4. 2618/Ahd/2017 2014-15 Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ito Ward-1(1)(3) Ltd., Ahmedabad

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the ground that an appeal did not lie against mere initiation of penalty proceedings. He ought to have appreciated, inter alia, that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the respondent's case, there being absolutely no warrant/justification for initiating the penalty proceedings, they deserved to be dropped, thereby saving both the appellant

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE (JAO-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE1(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing for Ground No. 1 of the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.( ERSTWHILE LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing for Ground No. 1 of the assessee

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.(A SUCCESSOR OF LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (EARLIER ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HOSUR), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing for Ground No. 1 of the assessee

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

va) with respect to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. GSRTC, 366 ITR 170 has decided this issue against the assessee. 19. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Since the issue is decided against the assessee

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

va) with respect to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. GSRTC, 366 ITR 170 has decided this issue against the assessee. 19. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Since the issue is decided against the assessee

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

va) with respect to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. GSRTC, 366 ITR 170 has decided this issue against the assessee. 19. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Since the issue is decided against the assessee

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

va) with respect to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. GSRTC, 366 ITR 170 has decided this issue against the assessee. 19. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Since the issue is decided against the assessee

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

va) with respect to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. GSRTC, 366 ITR 170 has decided this issue against the assessee. 19. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Since the issue is decided against the assessee

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

va) with respect to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. GSRTC, 366 ITR 170 has decided this issue against the assessee. 19. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Since the issue is decided against the assessee

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

va) with respect to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. GSRTC, 366 ITR 170 has decided this issue against the assessee. 19. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Since the issue is decided against the assessee

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

va) with respect to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. GSRTC, 366 ITR 170 has decided this issue against the assessee. 19. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Since the issue is decided against the assessee

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

va) with respect to employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. GSRTC, 366 ITR 170 has decided this issue against the assessee. 19. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Since the issue is decided against the assessee

DHOLU CONSTRUCTION & PROJECTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the Act is unjustified. 25. Now we come to ground no. 1 regarding that ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming allocation of common expenses totaling unconnected in the nature of bank commission, interest, stationary/printing, travelling professional fees & oil/lubricant expenses to wind mill project thereby restricting deduction u/s. 80IA

VISHAL PLASTOMERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) Rs. 3,341/- 5. Addition u/s 41(1) Rs.7,65,98,856/- 6. Disallowance of capital expenses Rs. 16,61,419/- 3. The assessee filed appeal against the order to the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the assessees appeal, confirming the disallowance of bad debts, the addition made u/s 41(1

THE ITO, WARD-8(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL PLASTOMERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) Rs. 3,341/- 5. Addition u/s 41(1) Rs.7,65,98,856/- 6. Disallowance of capital expenses Rs. 16,61,419/- 3. The assessee filed appeal against the order to the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the assessees appeal, confirming the disallowance of bad debts, the addition made u/s 41(1

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

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