GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

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

reassessment proceedings 14A- Average value of investment @ 0.5% which is short deducted by Rs.10,02,013/- 27/03/2022 Notice u/s. 148 Issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

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

reassessment proceedings 14A- Average value of investment @ 0.5% which is short deducted by Rs.10,02,013/- 27/03/2022 Notice u/s. 148 Issued

ROMABEN KEYUR THAKORE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ANANDIBEN JITENDRABHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer By Observing As Follows:

deduction u/s.54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.79,07,696/-. Hence, the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice u/s.148 of the Act, which was served upon the assessee on 27.07.2022 and reassessment

ANKUR KIRITKUMAR MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the claim of deduction made by the assessee under section 80GGC of the Act in respect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA vs. THE BHARUCH DIST. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LIMITED, BHARUCH

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

deduction to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, the actual provision made in the ACIT vs. The Bharuch Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Asst.Year –2015-16 - 3– profit and loss account, as opposed to the higher claim made by the assessee. Following this assessment, the total income was reassessed

GRUH FINANCE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

reassessment proceedings carried out u/s.147 of the Act, made a new claim of deduction on account of Employees’ Stock Option

GRUH FINANCE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

reassessment proceedings carried out u/s.147 of the Act, made a new claim of deduction on account of Employees’ Stock Option

GRUH FINANCE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

reassessment proceedings carried out u/s.147 of the Act, made a new claim of deduction on account of Employees’ Stock Option

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GRUH FINANCE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

reassessment proceedings carried out u/s.147 of the Act, made a new claim of deduction on account of Employees’ Stock Option

DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD , NAVRANGPURA H.O AHMADABAD CITY

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

deduction for an earlier period. (c) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that dropping of proceedings under Section 263 does not validate the assessee's claim under reassessment

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

reassessment by making addition of Rs.29,55,558/- and denied the claim of deduction made u/s.10(38) of the Act, added

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. To permit the present proceedings for reassessment would be to permit the reopening

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

deduction under Section 80IB of the Act. To permit the present proceedings for reassessment would be to permit the reopening

SHREE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,VADODARA vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY. CIT, CICLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

deduction of your appellant which the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate. 1.03 Your appellant prays Your Honour to hold so now and quash the reassessment

SHREE SARVODAYA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,VADODARA vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

deduction of your appellant which the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate. 1.03 Your appellant prays Your Honour to hold so now and quash the reassessment

SHRI MODHESHWARI BACHAT DHIRAN ANE GRAHAK SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(PREVIOUSLY WARD-5), PALANPUR

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

deduction u/s. 80P thereby added as the income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the reassessment order, assessee filed appeal

RAHUL MONAL CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION : THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding disallowance of Assessee's claim of deduction

GMDC SCIENCE & RESEARCH CENTRE,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed for Statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

reassessment order dated 23/12/2013. 2. The C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer not granting deduction u/s. 11(1)(a) of 15% of Rs. 2,98,00,000/- added