ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 353, 354, 355, 356 & 357/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

section 115BBE of the act to the facts of the assessee in as much as that the said provision is not applicable to the appellant. 5). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A of Rs.1,09,63,725/- and U/s 234B of Rs.1,40,33,568/- aggregating Rs.2,49,97,293/-without appreciating

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 115BBE of the act to the facts of the assessee in as much as that the\nsaid provision is not applicable to the appellant.\n5). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A\nof\nRs.1,09,63,725/- and U/s 234B of Rs.1,40,33,568/-\naggregating Rs.2,49,97,293/-without appreciating

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 115BBE of the act to the facts of the assessee in as much as that the\nsaid provision is not applicable to the appellant.\n5). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A\nof\nRs.1,09,63,725/- and U/s 234B of Rs.1,40,33,568/-\naggregating Rs.2,49,97,293/-without appreciating

ALDIABLOS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 115BBE of the act to the facts of the assessee in as much as that the\nsaid provision is not applicable to the appellant.\n5). He has erred in law and facts in upholding charging of interest U/s 234A\nof Rs.1,09,63,725/- and U/s 234B of Rs.1,40,33,568/-\naggregating Rs.2,49,97,293/-without appreciating

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

reassess the income of the other person in\naccordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is\nsatisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or\nrequisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such\n52. A bare reading of the above reveals that jurisdiction u/s 153C

SAROJBEN NATVARBHAI PATEL,CHHOTAUDEPUR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

reassessment. During investigation, the Assessing\nOfficer observed that the assessee maintained a savings bank account with\nHDFC Bank Ltd., Bodeli Branch, where cash deposits aggregating to\nRs. 31,50,000/- were made during September 2013. On being questioned, the\nassessee submitted that the deposits represented part of Rs. 55,00,000/-\nreceived in cash from his brothers, Shri Indravadan

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO. LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, the captioned appeals are :

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

section 14A of the Act and also in directing the AO to recalculate the amount of disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"). 3. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in rejecting the contention of the Appellant that interest of Rs. 5,501.74 lacs cannot

GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, the captioned appeals are :

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

section 14A of the Act and also in directing the AO to recalculate the amount of disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"). 3. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in rejecting the contention of the Appellant that interest of Rs. 5,501.74 lacs cannot

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, the captioned appeals are :

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

section 14A of the Act and also in directing the AO to recalculate the amount of disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"). 3. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in rejecting the contention of the Appellant that interest of Rs. 5,501.74 lacs cannot

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MANTHAN SHYAM GANATRA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 139(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO), on the basis of information that the assessee had entered into certain transactions of sale of immovable property, proceeded to conduct necessary inquiry, provided in law, to decide whether it was a fit case of escapement of income so as to assume jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act for reopening