M/S. 9TH STREET ARCHITECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 115BBE. 3.3 The observations made and case law relied upon by CIT(A) in this regard are not admitted and contrary to the facts of the case as well as law.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) was conducted in the case

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHATHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

68,15,907/- under normal provisions and determining book profit of Rs 160,04,09,477/- u/s. 115JB. 2. On perusal of records, it is noticed that rectification order passed in the case of assessee company on 05/07/2017 wherein credit of DDT of Rs.9,53,58,500/- paid by the assessee was allowed against DDT demand payable

SHRI RAVINDRASINH N.GOHIL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-1(1),, BHAVNAGAR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act preferred by the assessee. In the penalty proceeding, on the basis of such peak balance of Rs.8,95,166/- penalty of Rs.3,15,890/- was levied, which was in turn confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). Hence, instant appeal before us. ITA Nos.3343 & 3344/Ahd/2015 Shri Ravindrasinh N Gohil vs. ITO Asst.Years

SHRI RAVINDRASINH N.GOHIL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-1(1),, BHAVNAGAR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act preferred by the assessee. In the penalty proceeding, on the basis of such peak balance of Rs.8,95,166/- penalty of Rs.3,15,890/- was levied, which was in turn confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). Hence, instant appeal before us. ITA Nos.3343 & 3344/Ahd/2015 Shri Ravindrasinh N Gohil vs. ITO Asst.Years

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

section 143(3) / 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Assessee is in Cross Objections for AYs 2009-10 to 2014-15. 2. At the outset, ld.AR submitted that though these appeals belong to different assessment years but the issues are identical except for the assessment years

VISHWA KALYAN SOCIETY,SABARKANTHA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 449/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Vishwa Kalyan Society, D.C.I.T, Vijay Samudranagar, Vs. Cpc, Atma Vallabh Hospital Parisar, Bangalore. Idar Himatnagar Highway, Sabarkantha-383430. Pan: Aaatv1108N

Rectification application is treated as Rejected.” 5. Aggrieved by the order U/s 154 of the Act by CPC, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who has decided the appeal by confirming the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- The appellant has filed return of income claiming income from house property at Rs.29

HARISHCHANDRA NATVARLAL PATEL -HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT ,CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 637/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Harishchandra Natavarlal Patel-Huf, D.C.I.T., Revolution Cinema, Vs. Circle-3(2), Nr. Ctm Char Rasta, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act by the learned CIT(A) - 3, Ahmedabad, your appellant submits following grounds of appeal amongst others for your kind justice. 1. The learned CIT(A) has grossly and grievously, erred in law and on facts by rejecting rectification and disallowing a sum of interest of Rs.5,40,375/-on secured term loans from

SAKARIYA METAL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 34/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2015-2016 Sakariya Metal Rolling Mills, I.T.O., 257, Gujrat Vapraj Mahamandal, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Vasahat, S.P. Ring Road, Ahmedabad. Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415. Pan: Aadfs3443A

u/s 143(3} dated 29-12-2017 assessing the total income at Rs. 92,21,7007- as against income returned of Rs. 77,050/- and order passed by learned C.I.T.(A)-3, Partly allowing the appeal are bad in law and the same should be cancelled. (2) The learned A.O. erred in making an addition of Rs.20,08,550/- being

PANKAJ JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1) OLD WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1442/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pankaj Jewellers Private The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Limited Ward-3(1)(1) V/S. 1199, Dedkani Pole [Old Ito, Ward-3(1)(2)] M.G. Haveli Road Ahmedabad 380 015 Manekchowk Ahmedabad 380 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcp 4590 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M. S. Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr

rectification application under section 154 of the Act before the AO, wherein the differences in turnover were duly reconciled as being on account of the treatment of indirect taxes. Consequently, the AO has amended the assessment order and deleted the addition of Rs. 39,22,626/-. 3. Accordingly, the only surviving grievance in the present appeal relates to the addition

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. RAJINDERKAUR SARABJITSINGH BAGAI L/H RAJVIT BAGAI, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 344/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 ITO Vs. Rajinderkaru Sarabjitsingh Bagai 2. The solitary ground raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance

AHMEDABAD STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, TDS CIRCLE, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

rectification of mistake u/s. 154 of the Act and imposing the liability to pay TCS of Rs. 4,03,139/- u/s. 206C(6A) r.w.s 206C(7) of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that the company has already collected and deposited

INCOME TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTION), WARD-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SKILL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY (SDS) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

rectification application was rejected by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore vide order dated 27-06-2023. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. I.T.A No. 1501/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No. 3 ITO (Exemption) vs. Skill Development Society (SDS) 4. The ld. D.R. submitted that

SCARLETT DESIGNS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 154 of the Act for the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since both the appeals relate to the same assessee, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. ITA Nos.2839 & 2840/Ahd/2015 Scarlett Designs Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 & 2011-12 ITA No.2839/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2010-11: 2. The assessee filed

BTW-ATLANTA TRANSFORMERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,BHARUCH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

rectification order u/s. 154 of the act and reduced disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 1,18,68,120/- which had already been disallowed by the I.T.A No. 1642 & 1643/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No 4 Shri BTW-Atlanta Transformers India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT assessing officer in his return of income. In this manner disallowed expenses

MEGHAL RAJESHKUMAR THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2018-19

u/s. 154 of the Act was filed on 20-03-2023 requesting thereby for granting of credit of taxes paid. The rectification application was not disposed of. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee also filed a separate application for immunity for penalty as per the provisions of section 270AA of the Act vide Form no. 68

SHRI RATNESH METAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

rectification order under section 154 of the Act by taking the gross 6 ITA Nos. 50 to 53/Ahd/2018 (Ratnesh Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT) profit at 9.70%, and accordingly, this has resulted into a reduced addition of Rs.17,20,563/- and not Rs.33,73,722/- as made by the AO in his assessment framed under section 143(3)/147

SHRI YAGNESH D VYAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

68 of the Act in the relevant assessment year, but the same cannot be taxed under section 4 . A.Y. 2013-14 41(1) of the Act, inasmuch as if the liability itself is not genuine, the question of remission or cessation thereof would not arise. 9. Ld. A.R. cited a judgment of ITAT Delhi Bench in the matter

KAMLESH D PATEL,CHEGUR, RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

Rectification order passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2019-20. I.T.A No. 1178/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 Page No 2 Kamlesh D. Patel. vs. ACIT 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Senior Citizen who has filed his Return

TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

68 lacs) being 200% of Rs. 985.46 lacs u/s. 35(2AB) of the I.T. Act which was the total amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee company for R & D expenditure which was claimed and allowed. In this regard, the Pr. CIT stated that as per form 3CL submitted by the assessee the DSIR has allowed Rs. 518.06 lacs