SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234B whereas he has allowed Grounds of Appeal and in respect of that this Ground of Appeal is required to be adjudicated.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of industrial plots i.e. purchase of land, development of such land, industrial plotting followed by sale of such land. The assessee filed return of income under Section

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

234B & 234Cof the IT Act. (5) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, omit or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal before the Appeal is finally heard and decided.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that at the time of filing of return of income on 23rd September 2011, the assessee had calculated

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

reassessment for AY 2018-19 to 2021-22 due to purchases from entities flagged as bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of account under Section 145(3) and applied a 12.5% gross profit (GP) rate. The CIT(A) reduced this rate to 5% for AY 2018-19 and 6% for AY 2020-21 and 2021-22.", "held

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

234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” Ground No.1:- This ground relates to disallowance under Section 14A 4. of the Act. ITA Nos.318&414/Ahd/2020 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam

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

234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 4. Ground No.1:- This ground relates to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 5. The Ld. A.O. disallowed

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

234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 4. Ground No.1:- This ground relates to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 5. The Ld. A.O. disallowed

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3– Traders, but despite repeated notices under section 142(1) of the Act calling for books of account, ledgers, vouchers, mandi licence, transport bills and other documentary evidence, he failed to furnish any supporting material. In the original reassessment order passed under sections 147 read with 144 and 144B of the Act on 20.03.2023, the Faceless Assessing Officer nevertheless estimated

IRM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in initiating reassessment proceedings vide issuance of reopening notice dated 31 March 2018 under section 148 of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that it was issued beyond a period of four years

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira LNG Private Limited (‘HLPL’), Hazira Port Private Limited (‘HPPL’), Shell India Markets