ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

establish the identity of the creditor, the creditworthiness of the creditor, and the genuineness of the transaction. In the case before us, we find that the assessee has undisputedly filed all the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer. Specifically, we refer to the assessee's submission in response to show cause notice in the assessment proceeding which is reproduced

SHRI NARENDRA B. PATEL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

establish the source of money paid for the investment in the property bearing survey No. 125 and 124. But the AO without pointing any defect in the document submitted and without requiring any other document for his satisfaction treated the part of investment in property in above mentioned survey numbers as unexplained investment under section

M/S. SOFTTOUCH COSMETIC (MKTG.) PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68 of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter one or more grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 31-10-2005 declaring the total income at " “Nil”. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment and the AO noted

D. J. STOCK BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri T.S. Kapoor

section 68 contemplates that there should be a credit of amounts in the books of an assessee maintained by the assessee, (b) such amount has to be a sum received during the previous year, (c) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books, or (d) the explanation 7 offered

HEMANT GORDHANBHAI PATEL,NADIAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN., VADODARA

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68,35,500/- located at Nadiad, Gujarat. The AO noted that two specific payments were made by the assessee through cheques dated 15.05.2013 and 25.10.2013, totalling to ₹51,26,625/- for purchase of the aforesaid property. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the funds were paid from his NRE account (Bank of Baroda Account No. 029001000015955). However

MOHAMMED SALEEM ABDULKADER KAJALWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(3), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

establishing identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan transactions. Whereas the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground of Investigation Report, the unsecured creditors are shell companies and not responded to the notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act treated his entire unsecured loans as not genuine and not explained to the satisfaction. The Assessing Officer also held that

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

permanent establishment in India; that in any case, the impugned amounts were not liable to tax in India. References were made to several decisions in this regard. 12. The ld.DR, on the other hand, pointed out that these arguments were not made by the ld.counsel for the assessee before the lower authorities and were being raised for the first time

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

permanent establishment in India; that in any case, the impugned amounts were not liable to tax in India. References were made to several decisions in this regard. 12. The ld.DR, on the other hand, pointed out that these arguments were not made by the ld.counsel for the assessee before the lower authorities and were being raised for the first time

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

permanent establishment in India; that in any case, the impugned amounts were not liable to tax in India. References were made to several decisions in this regard. 12. The ld.DR, on the other hand, pointed out that these arguments were not made by the ld.counsel for the assessee before the lower authorities and were being raised for the first time

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

permanent establishment in India; that in any case, the impugned amounts were not liable to tax in India. References were made to several decisions in this regard. 12. The ld.DR, on the other hand, pointed out that these arguments were not made by the ld.counsel for the assessee before the lower authorities and were being raised for the first time

M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT., MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

permanent establishment of Gulf Engineering Consultancy FZC, UAE, in India, the consideration paid by the assessee to the UAE based party is not taxable in India and, therefore, there is no requirement under the provisions of the Act to withhold the taxes. Therefore, there is no requirement under the provisions of the Act to withheld the taxes. Therefore

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

permanent establishment of Gulf Engineering Consultancy FZC, UAE, in India, the consideration paid by the assessee to the UAE based party is not taxable in India and, therefore, there is no requirement under the provisions of the Act to withhold the taxes. Therefore, there is no requirement under the provisions of the Act to withheld the taxes. Therefore

SHRI HAJI MOHMMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,BARODA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3 (1),, BARODA

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeals: “1. The Ld. CIT(A)-2, Vadodara has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.62

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

established that the assessee was the sole developer in the present contracts which are related to the developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. It is further seen that the CIT(A) has examined all these aspects and has given a categorical finding including all the projects involved and, therefore

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

established that the assessee was the sole developer in the present contracts which are related to the developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. It is further seen that the CIT(A) has examined all these aspects and has given a categorical finding including all the projects involved and, therefore

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

established that the assessee was the sole developer in the present contracts which are related to the developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. It is further seen that the CIT(A) has examined all these aspects and has given a categorical finding including all the projects involved and, therefore

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

established that the assessee was the sole developer in the present contracts which are related to the developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. It is further seen that the CIT(A) has examined all these aspects and has given a categorical finding including all the projects involved and, therefore

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

established that the assessee was the sole developer in the present contracts which are related to the developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. It is further seen that the CIT(A) has examined all these aspects and has given a categorical finding including all the projects involved and, therefore