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)

35 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT Amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 is Retrospective in nature and thereby applicable for the present Asst. Year. 14.1. We need not labour ourself on this issue, since very recently Hon’ble Guwahati High Court reversed the decision

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)

35 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT Amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 is Retrospective in nature and thereby applicable for the present Asst. Year. 14.1. We need not labour ourself on this issue, since very recently Hon’ble Guwahati High Court reversed the decision

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)

35 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT Amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 is Retrospective in nature and thereby applicable for the present Asst. Year. 14.1. We need not labour ourself on this issue, since very recently Hon’ble Guwahati High Court reversed the decision

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)

35 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT Amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 is Retrospective in nature and thereby applicable for the present Asst. Year. 14.1. We need not labour ourself on this issue, since very recently Hon’ble Guwahati High Court reversed the decision

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

35. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty

ASHVIN PARSOTTAMBHAI SARDHARA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.68/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ashvin Parsottambhai Vs. The Assistant Sardhara, Commissioner Of B-27, Sudarshan Tower, Income Tax, Opp. Sun-N-Step Club, Circle-4(1)(1), Sal Hospital Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380054. [Pan No.Bdjps2083Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D K Parikh, Ar Respondent By: Adjournment Application Filed Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2025 O R D E R

reassessment order. On the facts and in view of the submissions made, the order passed being untenable in law ought to be quashed. It be quashed now. 2. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Id CIT (Appeals)/NFAC further erred in law and on facts in not properly considering the grounds No: 3 to 8 and elaborate submissions thereon

SMT. LAKSHMI ASHOK KAVDIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 251/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated under section 147 of the Act merely on the report received from the investigation wing of the income tax Department. 3.1 The assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) also submitted that the donation made by her to SHG & PH is eligible for exemption under section 35(1)(iii) of the Act vide notification No. 4/2010

VINOD CHIMANLAL MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Vinod Chimanlal Modi The Dcit, Cir.1(2) B-1/2, L.R. Apartments Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Police Commissioner’S Office Shahibaug Ahmedabad. Pan : Agqpm 1294 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 31.12.2018 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-6/221/18-19 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee As Follows:

reassessment was completed disallowing donation made to Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation, Kolkatta by the assessee as bogus and claim of the assessee on account of deduction under section 35(1)(ii

THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

35(2AB). The phrase 'relating to' has been used again in several sections including sections 36(l)(vii), 28(ii)(c). The phrase 'wholly and exclusively for the purposes of has been used in sections 37 and 57(iii). On going through the use of the above and other similar expressions in different parts of the Act, it is clearly

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has received a sum of Rs 1,58,00,000 from the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI, in short) as towards the TV rights. When he probed the matter further, it was explained by the assessee that nomenclature of the receipt apart, what has been received by the assessee

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has received a sum of Rs 1,58,00,000 from the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI, in short) as towards the TV rights. When he probed the matter further, it was explained by the assessee that nomenclature of the receipt apart, what has been received by the assessee