SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 14A was squarely covered by Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178/283 Taxman 178/438 ITR 1/ [2021] 10 SCC 153 wherein it was held that since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax-free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

section 14A was squarely covered by Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178/283 Taxman 178/438 ITR 1/ [2021] 10 SCC 153 wherein it was held that since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax-free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds

AMIT GIRDHARBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. I.T.A No. 811/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Amit Girdharbhai Patel vs. ACIT 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual filed his Return of Income

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

47)(iv) of the Act, if capital asset is converted into stock-in- trade or treated as stock-in-trade by the owner, such conversion or treatment shall be regarded as transfer. Further, as per sec. 45(2) of the-Act, the profits or gains arising from such transfer shall be chargeable to income- tax as his income (capital gain

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.’ 2. New Rule 8D : 2.1 In exercise of the powers given in S. 14A(2) C.B.D.T. has issued

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

47,709.74 lacs on which dividend earned was at Rs.508.18 lacs. The AO's objection was that on one hand the assessee has diverted the huge funds towards such investment having exempted income and on the other hand borrowed huge funds of Rs.3,46,272.51 lacs on which claimed interest of Rs. 19360.59 lacs. Therefore

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

47,709.74 lacs on which dividend earned was at Rs.508.18 lacs. The AO's objection was that on one hand the assessee has diverted the huge funds towards such investment having exempted income and on the other hand borrowed huge funds of Rs.3,46,272.51 lacs on which claimed interest of Rs. 19360.59 lacs. Therefore

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

reassessment, as the case maybe, under the said sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be extended by twelve months. Section 153 of the Act does not permit passing any order after the expiry of 33 months from the end of the assessment year i.e. AY 2016-17 in the present case. Therefore, the time limit for completing assessment

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 2841 & 2842/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 204-05 Gujarat State Electricity The Dcit बनाम/ Corporation Ltd. Circle-1(1) V/S. Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan Baroda Race Course Circle Alkapuri, Baroda – 390 007 (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (&' यथ$/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F

V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: These appeals by the assessee, Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (GSECL), are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- I, Baroda (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer ([hereinafter referred to as “AO”) to the book profits computed under Section 115JB of the Income

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 2841 & 2842/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 204-05 Gujarat State Electricity The Dcit बनाम/ Corporation Ltd. Circle-1(1) V/S. Sardar Patel Vidhyut Bhavan Baroda Race Course Circle Alkapuri, Baroda – 390 007 (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (&' यथ$/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 6864 F

V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: These appeals by the assessee, Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (GSECL), are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- I, Baroda (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer ([hereinafter referred to as “AO”) to the book profits computed under Section 115JB of the Income

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

47,49,154 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

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

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

2. 12,04,10,000/- Inter-bank Date-wise bank details filed; transfers source and movement explained. [as per para 5.6 of order of CIT(A)] 3. 31,74,63,176/- Cash sales and Supported by cash book, bank re-deposit of statement and tabular chart withdrawals (reply dated 05.02.2024). [as per para 5.7 of order

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

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

2. 12,04,10,000/- Inter-bank Date-wise bank details filed; transfers source and movement explained. [as per para 5.6 of order of CIT(A)] 3. 31,74,63,176/- Cash sales and Supported by cash book, bank re-deposit of statement and tabular chart withdrawals (reply dated 05.02.2024). [as per para 5.7 of order

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

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

2. 12,04,10,000/- Inter-bank Date-wise bank details filed; transfers source and movement explained. [as per para 5.6 of order of CIT(A)] 3. 31,74,63,176/- Cash sales and Supported by cash book, bank re-deposit of statement and tabular chart withdrawals (reply dated 05.02.2024). [as per para 5.7 of order

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, AHMEDABAD

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

2. 12,04,10,000/- Inter-bank Date-wise bank details filed; transfers source and movement explained. [as per para 5.6 of order of CIT(A)] 3. 31,74,63,176/- Cash sales and Supported by cash book, bank re-deposit of statement and tabular chart withdrawals (reply dated 05.02.2024). [as per para 5.7 of order

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 relevant to this assessment year. He pointed out that search was conducted on 21.9.2010. This is assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, this

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 relevant to this assessment year. He pointed out that search was conducted on 21.9.2010. This is assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, this

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was expired much prior to the date of search ITA No. 210/Ahd/2020 & 08 others Shri Rohitji Chanduji Thakore vs. ITO Asst. Years –2005-06 to 2011-12 relevant to this assessment year. He pointed out that search was conducted on 21.9.2010. This is assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, this