THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) are satisfied. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete this addition of Rs 1,58,00,000. 67. Consistent with our stand on the same issue for the earlier assessment year, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) are satisfied. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete this addition of Rs 1,58,00,000. 67. Consistent with our stand on the same issue for the earlier assessment year, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) are satisfied. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete this addition of Rs 1,58,00,000. 67. Consistent with our stand on the same issue for the earlier assessment year, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) are satisfied. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete this addition of Rs 1,58,00,000. 67. Consistent with our stand on the same issue for the earlier assessment year, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete

GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) are satisfied. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete this addition of Rs 1,58,00,000. 67. Consistent with our stand on the same issue for the earlier assessment year, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete

THE DY..DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2007-

Bench: Us. It Is, Accordingly, Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

section 11(1)(d) are satisfied. We, therefore, uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete this addition of Rs 1,58,00,000. 67. Consistent with our stand on the same issue for the earlier assessment year, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

11 10001-25000 1,64,93,278 1,079 0.30% 99.84% 12 25001 and 8,88,07,958 588 0.16% 100.00% above Grand Total 68,35,63,534 3,57,376 100.00% ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 8.8 It further appears that various courses conducted

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

11 10001-25000 1,64,93,278 1,079 0.30% 99.84% 12 25001 and 8,88,07,958 588 0.16% 100.00% above Grand Total 68,35,63,534 3,57,376 100.00% ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 8.8 It further appears that various courses conducted

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

11 10001-25000 1,64,93,278 1,079 0.30% 99.84% 12 25001 and 8,88,07,958 588 0.16% 100.00% above Grand Total 68,35,63,534 3,57,376 100.00% ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 8.8 It further appears that various courses conducted

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

11 10001-25000 1,64,93,278 1,079 0.30% 99.84% 12 25001 and 8,88,07,958 588 0.16% 100.00% above Grand Total 68,35,63,534 3,57,376 100.00% ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 8.8 It further appears that various courses conducted

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

68", "11", "12", "13(1)(c)", "13(3)", "11(1A)", "12AA", "2(15)", "270A" ], "issues": "1. Whether the sale consideration of shares could be treated as an unexplained cash credit under Section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

11 of the impugned Assessment Order has furnished the details of these expenses, sub head wise and further submitted before the AO that the impugned expenses are duly supported by 3rd party invoices and have been incurred by account payee cheques only (source -page 9 of assessment order). AO has not doubted the same. Hence, the details filed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

11 of the impugned Assessment Order has furnished the details of these expenses, sub head wise and further submitted before the AO that the impugned expenses are duly supported by 3rd party invoices and have been incurred by account payee cheques only (source -page 9 of assessment order). AO has not doubted the same. Hence, the details filed

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

11 & 12 was based on an incorrect invocation of Section 13(1)(c) as there was no benefit derived by the trustee from the trust's property or income. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the appeal of the Assessee was partly allowed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "68

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

68 of the Act in respect of sale consideration of shares of e-infochips Limited. Further, the Assessing Officer had also denied exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

68 of the Act? 7. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 32,95,776/- u/s. 269SS of the Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making disallowance of Rs.75

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

11,29,21,996/- 79. The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.11,29,21,996/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had made substantial additions to capital work-in-progress (CWIP) during the year, but no proportionate interest cost was capitalised in its books. The AO noted that the assessee

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

11,29,21,996/- 79. The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.11,29,21,996/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had made substantial additions to capital work-in-progress (CWIP) during the year, but no proportionate interest cost was capitalised in its books. The AO noted that the assessee

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

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

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as under:- SrNo Name of Depositor Amount Rs 1 Abedabibi Mehbub Foda 22,05,000 2 Hafsabibi Suleman Kothi 23,38,000 3 Hasan Suleman Kothi 67,34,000 4 Irfan M Firdos Kothi 1,11,00,000 IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals - HK Ispat Pvt Ltd Asst.Year