THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

IA(5) of the Act. 5. In view of the above, the AO disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10) of the Act by the assessee. The AO while making the disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10) of the Act made reference to the AY 2012-13 where his predecessor has made such disallowance

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 80IA of the Act at Rs. 17,68,251/-. This ground is therefore dismissed. 34. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 35. The learned AR before us contended that the net interest income should only be excluded from the profit eligible for deduction under section 80-IA

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 80IA of the Act at Rs. 17,68,251/-. This ground is therefore dismissed. 34. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 35. The learned AR before us contended that the net interest income should only be excluded from the profit eligible for deduction under section 80-IA

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

reassessment. It is also established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to record his/her satisfaction on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should apply his/her independent mind to record his/her satisfaction and further mandatory condition is that the satisfaction recorded should be ‘independent’ and not ‘borrowed’ or ‘dictated’ satisfaction

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

reassessment. It is also established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to record his/her satisfaction on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should apply his/her independent mind to record his/her satisfaction and further mandatory condition is that the satisfaction recorded should be ‘independent’ and not ‘borrowed’ or ‘dictated’ satisfaction

HIPOLIN LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1559/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Hipolin Limited, I.T.O, 4Th Floor, Madhuban Building, Vs. Ward-2(1)(3), Nr. Madalpur Garnala, Ahmedabad. Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaach3876J

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,16,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on the assumption that the aforesaid labour and freight expenses were not allowed by virtue of section

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

ia) also cannot be made. In the result ground no.9 of the appeal is allowed.” 30. In view of the identical issue raised before us in the ground of appeal no. 7 which has already been considered by the ITAT Delhi as discussed above, we are taking the same view. Accordingly, we allow the ground of appeal of the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD., VADODARA

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

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

reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.A No. 169/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 ACIT Vs. Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company engaged in manufacturing of Chemicals

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

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. The sub-Section (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section by the Finance

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Disallowance u/s. 14A: 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of AO in making disallowance by invoking the provision of section 14A of the Act and also in directing the AO to recalculate the amount of disallowance as per Rule

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Disallowance u/s. 14A: 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of AO in making disallowance by invoking the provision of section 14A of the Act and also in directing the AO to recalculate the amount of disallowance as per Rule

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Disallowance u/s. 14A: 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of AO in making disallowance by invoking the provision of section 14A of the Act and also in directing the AO to recalculate the amount of disallowance as per Rule

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

reassessment proceedings, an assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a\ndeduction that was not claimed in the original return. Thus, the assessment proceedings\ninitiated on the basis of an action under Section 132 of the Act also cannot be utilized by the\nassessee to seek a relief not claimed earlier and thus cannot seek a review of a concluded

CRYSTAL CERAMICS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

147 of the Act and the action of re-opening is without jurisdiction and is not permissible either in law or on facts. I.T.A Nos. 682, 859 & 860/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 4 Cyrstal Ceramics Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

147 of the Act and the action of re-opening is without jurisdiction and is not permissible either in law or on facts. I.T.A Nos. 682, 859 & 860/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 4 Cyrstal Ceramics Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. CRYSTAL CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

147 of the Act and the action of re-opening is without jurisdiction and is not permissible either in law or on facts. I.T.A Nos. 682, 859 & 860/Ahd/2024 A.Ys. 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 4 Cyrstal Ceramics Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred