DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., VADODARA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

293) E.L.T. 689]. It would appear that the decision, though rendered on 3-5-2013, was reported in the issue of the E.L.T., dated 29-7-2013, when the present case was being argued before us, perhaps, not available to the parties. However, we have, in that decision, applied the law, as laid down in the earlier cases, some

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

293) E.L.T. 689]. It would appear that the decision, though rendered on 3-5-2013, was reported in the issue of the E.L.T., dated 29-7-2013, when the present case was being argued before us, perhaps, not available to the parties. However, we have, in that decision, applied the law, as laid down in the earlier cases, some

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

293) E.L.T. 689]. It would appear that the decision, though rendered on 3-5-2013, was reported in the issue of the E.L.T., dated 29-7-2013, when the present case was being argued before us, perhaps, not available to the parties. However, we have, in that decision, applied the law, as laid down in the earlier cases, some

THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSUIT GLASS & CERAMICS PVT. LTD., BARODA

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

293) E.L.T. 689]. It would appear that the decision, though rendered on 3-5-2013, was reported in the issue of the E.L.T., dated 29-7-2013, when the present case was being argued before us, perhaps, not available to the parties. However, we have, in that decision, applied the law, as laid down in the earlier cases, some

DHANVIDHYA IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.970/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-06 Dhanvidhya Impex P.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4) F/2, Tushar Centre Ahmedabad. Statdium Circle Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacd 7729 E

293 (Guj)’ ITA No.970 /Ahd/2017 4 iv) Harikishan Sunderlal Virman Vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 146 (Guj) 5. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities. He pointed out that after conclusion of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee fresh material was found indicating that some of the claims made

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

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

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT, VADODARA-1,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.468/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

reassessment order. The figure of book profit in 147 order as well as u/s.143(3) orders are identical. Even if some variation is there, then that variation is by virtue of order giving effect passed on the basis of CIT(A)’s order but again that was also not subject matter of section 263 of the Act. 8. For buttressing

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NASCENT INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2828/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Ito M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. A-805, Sapath-Iv, Opp. Ahmedabad Karnavati Club, Ahmedabad- 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Cn3 670 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Mehul K. Patel, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

293 ITR 524 (Mad). 6. The assessee further submitted that it had not concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particular of income in its income tax return. The claim for the depreciation was made under the bona fide belief. Thus the claim of the assessee may be wrong but that does not mean that the assessee has furnished inaccurate

BHAVNA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee succeeds on legal ground towards validity of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1454/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

section 147 of the Act towards escapement of income. The plain reading of the reasons provided would overtly show that the AO merely wanted to make enquiry to find out the correctness of the information so received from other AO. The Ld. AR accordingly submitted that a bona fide ‘belief’ towards escapement of income is clearly absent in the case

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessees are allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

293). In that year, the AO shall not allow any accumulation u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act @ 15%. (For example: If appellant earns Rs. 100 and applies Rs. 110 then Rs. 10 would be allowed to be carried forward as deficit and there will be no accumulation u/s.11(1)(a).) In an immediate subsequent year, AO will allow, firstly

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