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

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

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

rectification entries in subsequent year by showing said interest expense as prior period income, in view of such necessary corrections done by assessee, no mens-rea could be inferred on part of assessee so as to attract impugned penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) and, thus, same was to be deleted.” 7. Per Contra, Ld.CIT-DR appearing

PARVINDAR INDAR SINGH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

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

u/s 154 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, invoking of section 154 of the Act is illegal and without jurisdiction as there was no mistake apparent from the records. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding the rectification made by the Ld. AO whereby

PARVINDAR INDAR SINGH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

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

u/s 154 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, invoking of section 154 of the Act is illegal and without jurisdiction as there was no mistake apparent from the records. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding the rectification made by the Ld. AO whereby

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

154 10,99,43,284 2,97,34,926 2,79,81,468 8,52,11,191 3,44,69,278 153A in Rs. Since the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal in part, the Revenue is in appeal(s) before us, and the assessee filed two appeals and Cross Objections. Following are the grounds: 3. Grounds raised by the Revenue

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the above ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(E) erred in fact and in law in invoking revision power u/s 263 of the Act on an issue of allowability of exemption u/s 11 of the Act despite the fact that proceeding u/s 263 cannot be initiated on debatable issue. Gujarat Technological University vs. CIT(E) Asst. Year

MINOR HARESH KARSANBHAI PATEL ORAL SPECIFIC DEFERRED FAMILY TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2) NOW WARD- 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 863/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 1982-1983 Minor Haresh Karsanbhai Patel Oral Income Tax Officer, Specific Deferred Family Trust, Vs. Ward-5(2)(2), Nirma House, Ahmedabad. Near Income Tax Circle, Now Ashram Road, Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad-380009. Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad Pan: Aaath4880P

rectification order passed under s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 1982-1983. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in points

THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

154 proposing to withdraw the interest is void. The return for AY 2011-12 was selected for scrutiny, and an order under section 143(3) was passed on 5th March 2014, raising a demand of ₹1.67 crore. This demand was adjusted against a refund due for AY 2009-10. Subsequently, The Kalupur Commercial Co.op. Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year

MAUNANG FARMS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),(NOW ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 154 of the Act vide letter dated 09.01.2020 before the AO, however, the appellant company had not received any rectification order till date. (v) In the rectification application u/s.154 of the Act dated 09.01.2020, the appellant had contended that according to various judicial pronouncements by various courts if the difference between valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority

RAM KISHOR SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI PRESENT AO: THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

154 instead of\nsection 147.\n2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting ground no.1\nrelating to validity of assessment, ground no.2 for addition u/s.69A of\nRs.2,36,13,831 and ground no.3 for computing wrong tax liabilities by\nway of additional tax on the ground of appeal being for rectification order\nand

RAM KISHOR SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI PRESENT AO: THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

154 instead of\nsection 147.\n2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting ground no.1\nrelating to validity of assessment, ground no.2 for addition u/s.69A of\nRs.2,36,13,831 and ground no.3 for computing wrong tax liabilities by\nway of additional tax on the ground of appeal being for rectification order\nand

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects