THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHALIGRAM INFRA PROJECTS LLP , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

40A(2)(b), and the order\nof the AO deserved to be restored.\n7.\nThe learned Authorised Representative(AR) supported the order of the\nCIT(A) and placed reliance on his detailed findings. It was pointed out that\nthe Assessing Officer had made the impugned additions solely on the basis\nof certain loose papers being page nos.58 and 60 seized

GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4, NOW, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

40A(2)(b) of the Act for cancellation of booking of land purchased amounting to Rs.1,08,14,730/- ought to be disallowed. 13. As far as first issue is concerned, we have noticed the finding of the ld.CIT(A) that reopening was not valid. According to the ld.CIT(A) the assessment was sought to be reopened on change

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

40A(2)(b) of the Act for cancellation of booking of land purchased amounting to Rs.1,08,14,730/- ought to be disallowed. 13. As far as first issue is concerned, we have noticed the finding of the ld.CIT(A) that reopening was not valid. According to the ld.CIT(A) the assessment was sought to be reopened on change

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1115/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Ward-1(2)(3), Shaikh, Prop. of M/s. I.K. Ahmedabad International, House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Kagdiwad, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN No. AHEPS2816H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O. No. 10/Ahd/2022

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1115/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Ward-1(2)(3), Shaikh, Prop. of M/s. I.K. Ahmedabad International, House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Kagdiwad, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN No. AHEPS2816H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O. No. 10/Ahd/2022

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

40A(2)(b) by their independent effort and also on the basis of facilities obtained on hire from SPIL; .2 SPG had acquired these technologies from UTL and MJPL and hence the question of SPG not having R&D facilities and/or fixed assets was not relevant to the issue beforehand; .3 the income statements of SPG were examined in detail

SANGATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

reassessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings, in spite of affording opportunities of hearing, the appellant failed to file any explanation / justification in the matter. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “Section 40A(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides that

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 73 and 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in quashing the assessment order holding that reassessment

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

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. 12. A perusal of this section would indicate that sub-section-1 contemplates that deduction of expenditure incurred

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

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. 12. A perusal of this section would indicate that sub-section-1 contemplates that deduction of expenditure incurred

SHRI KAMLESH JAYANTILAL JHAVERI,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Kamlesh Jayantilal Jhaveri, Income Tax Officer, B/201, Siddh Silla Apartment, Vs Ward 10(1), B/H. Ekta Tower, Barrage Road, Ahmedabad Vasna, Ahmedabad Pan : Aetpj 5973 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad-5 [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 26.02.2015; And, The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Learned Cit(A) On Account Of Disallowance Of Assessee’S Claim For Loss Of Rs.12.64 Crores.

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. But ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of losses of Rs.77,95,670/- on the basis of his observation which erupted out of the additional plea taken by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings and before the first appellate authority assessee had submitted that primarily all the impugned 15 transactions have

M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

section 192 of the Act. But the assessee has claimed such expenses without deducting the TDS. Thus the impugned expenses cannot be allowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on records

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

section 192 of the Act. But the assessee has claimed such expenses without deducting the TDS. Thus the impugned expenses cannot be allowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on records

SHRI KAMLESH J. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 10(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1254/Ahd/2016 नि◌धा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shri Kamlesh J. Jhaveri, Income Tax Officer, B/201, Siddh Silla Apartment, Vs. Ward-10(1), B/H. Ekta Tower, Ahmedabad. Barage Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Aetpj5973L

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. But ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of losses of Rs.77,95,670/- on the basis of his observation which erupted out of the additional plea taken by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings and before the first appellate authority assessee had submitted that primarily all the impugned 15 transactions have

AFFAQUE BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act thereby assessing the total income of Rs.1,67,43,373/-. 2.1. On perusal of the above reassessment records by Ld. PCIT, the assessee company has made total cash deposits of Rs.2,09,79,700/-, however in the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer has made an addition only to the extent of Rs.1 crore. Thus

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

2 of Rs.4,35,000/- which was disallowed by the AO with aid of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. 3. In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. With the assistance of the ld.DR, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that

SHREE DHAIN AUTO LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE DCIT- CICLE-2(1)(1)), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 392/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Shree Dhain Auto Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 124 days in filing the above

SIMENS HEALTHCASE DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED ( THROUGH SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST SIEMENS LIMITED ),,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT, VADODARA-2,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1442/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09) Simens Healthcare The Principal बनाम/ Diagnostics Limited Commissioner Of Income Vs. (Through Successor In Tax Interest Siemens Limited) Vadodara-2 Birla Aurora, Level 21, Plot No. 1080, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400030 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb8542M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jet Kamar, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 14/03/2024 03/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.03.2015 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-2 (‘Pcit’), Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’), Whereby & Whereunder The Assessment Order Dated 23.10.2012 Passed By The Acit, Circle-4, Baroda (In Short ‘Ao’) Has Been Directed To

reassess by the Ld. AO afresh on the issue of escaping assessment of Rs.4,02,68,141/- under Section 40A(i) & Rs.13,23,376/- under Section 14A of the Act for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued against the order passed

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. APPLITECH SOLUTION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 246/Ahd/2020 & CO No. 74/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Applitech Solution Limited, Circle 1(1)(1), Vs 503, Paritosh, Nr. Darpan Ahmedabad Academy, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380013 PAN: AABCA 8332 P ITA No. 247/Ahd/2020 & CO No. 75/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year