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

section 68 of the Act. As per amended provisions, the assessee IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals - HK Ispat Pvt Ltd Asst.Year : 2015-16 to 2021-2022 - 8– needs to explain source to source of sum credited to his bank account, the appellant submitted that such amended provisions not applicable to current year, thus the appellant

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‟s SLP dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in CC No. 16694/2013 on 27th September 2013 38. What culminates from the aforesaid two sets of parallel decisions is that the provisions of section 144C

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,462/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had declared the operating margin on cost 987.33% whereas the operating margin on cost of the comparable business is between 3.82% to 23.30% only. ITA No.204/Ahd/2013 with C.O.No.45/Ahd/2015 and 7 others A.Y. 2008-09 3 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought

THE DCIT.CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SANAND TEXTILE INDS.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.995/Ahd/2014 With Co No.167/Ahd/2014 (In Ita No.1166/Ahd/2014) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 1995-96) Shree Sanand Textiles The Dy.Cit (Osd) बनाम/ Industries Ltd. Circle-8 Vs. 10-A, Sattar Taluka Society Ahmedabad B/H. C.U. Shah College Navjivan Press Road Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamc 8881 G (Appellant & Cross Objector) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1166/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 1995-96) The Dcit Shree Sanand Textile बनाम/ Circle-8 Industries Ltd., Vs. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil R.Shah, Shri Tushar Hemani & Ms.Kinjal Shah, Ars Revenue By : Shri Vidhut Trivedi, Sr.Dr

section 68 of the Act by making the addition of Rs. 3,75,39,177/- to the total income of the assessee. The view taken by the AO was also adopted by the learned CIT(A). 9.1. Similarly, the AO also found that there was the suppression of sale to the tune of Rs. 3,44,10

SHREE SANAND TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.995/Ahd/2014 With Co No.167/Ahd/2014 (In Ita No.1166/Ahd/2014) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 1995-96) Shree Sanand Textiles The Dy.Cit (Osd) बनाम/ Industries Ltd. Circle-8 Vs. 10-A, Sattar Taluka Society Ahmedabad B/H. C.U. Shah College Navjivan Press Road Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamc 8881 G (Appellant & Cross Objector) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1166/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 1995-96) The Dcit Shree Sanand Textile बनाम/ Circle-8 Industries Ltd., Vs. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil R.Shah, Shri Tushar Hemani & Ms.Kinjal Shah, Ars Revenue By : Shri Vidhut Trivedi, Sr.Dr

section 68 of the Act by making the addition of Rs. 3,75,39,177/- to the total income of the assessee. The view taken by the AO was also adopted by the learned CIT(A). 9.1. Similarly, the AO also found that there was the suppression of sale to the tune of Rs. 3,44,10

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure Rs. 3

DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

section u/s 68 of the Act in respect of proceeds\n\nITA Nos.1205 & 769/Ahd/2025\n Assessment Years: 2018-19\nACIT(E) vs. Dr. KR Shroff Foundation\nPage 7 of 24\nreceived by the assessee in respect of sale of shares is not found correct.\nThere is no dispute to the fact that a sum of Rs.538.40 Crores was\nreceived

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

section u/s 68 of the Act in respect of proceeds ITA Nos.1205 & 769/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 ACIT(E) vs. Dr. KR Shroff Foundation Page 7 of 24 received by the assessee in respect of sale of shares is not found correct. There is no dispute to the fact that a sum of Rs.538.40 Crores was received

AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.53/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

68 of the Act. Asstt. Year 2010-11 3 3.3 In view of the above the learned Principal CIT show caused the assessee vide letter dated 3rd March 2020 proposing to hold the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

section u/s 68 of the Act in respect of proceeds\n\nITA Nos.1205 & 769/Ahd/2025\n Assessment Years: 2018-19\nACIT(E) vs. Dr. KR Shroff Foundation\nPage 7 of 24\n\nreceived by the assessee in respect of sale of shares is not found correct.\nThere is no dispute to the fact that a sum of Rs.538.40 Crores

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. BHAVESHKUMAR GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

Appeal is allowed in ITA 978/Ahd/2025 and ITA\n978/Ahd/2025 as well

sections": [ "68", "10(38)", "115BBE", "271AAC", "143(1)", "143(3)", "144B", "37(1)", "147", "132", "132(4)", "131", "10

EAGLE STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. K. Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

68,187/- being transportation charges paid/credited in the above mentioned account without complying the provisions of section 194C of the Income-tax Act and without complying the provisions of Section 194C(7) of the Act, is disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Against the order of the ld. A.O., assessee preferred first statutory

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

10) in respect of alleged price difference Rs.1,25,288/- on purchase from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (SPIL) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) erred m upholding the invoking of the provisions of S.80IE(6) r.w.s. 80IA(10) and thereby upholding the disallowance of Rs.1,25,288/- on account