RANDHEJA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3 NOW WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

68 taxmann.com 298 (Ker), wherein he pointed out that the Hon’ble Court held that the claims for deduction made in the return filed beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) and made in returns filed u/s 142(1) or even u/s 148 of the Act cannot be denied in terms of section

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

5. The brief facts of the case, as per AY 2015-16, are that the assessee company filed its original return of income under section 139(1) declaring total income at Nil. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in Kothi Group on 05.11.2020, wherein the assessee was also covered. Pursuant to the search, notice

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

5. The brief facts of the case, as per AY 2015-16, are that the assessee company filed its original return of income under section 139(1) declaring total income at Nil. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in Kothi Group on 05.11.2020, wherein the assessee was also covered. Pursuant to the search, notice

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

5. The brief facts of the case, as per AY 2015-16, are that the assessee company filed its original return of income under section 139(1) declaring total income at Nil. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in Kothi Group on 05.11.2020, wherein the assessee was also covered. Pursuant to the search, notice

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

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 by the appellant trust specially part-1 and part-2 and the Apex course have a direct nexus and/or co- relation with the objects

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

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 by the appellant trust specially part-1 and part-2 and the Apex course have a direct nexus and/or co- relation with the objects

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

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 by the appellant trust specially part-1 and part-2 and the Apex course have a direct nexus and/or co- relation with the objects

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

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 by the appellant trust specially part-1 and part-2 and the Apex course have a direct nexus and/or co- relation with the objects

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

section 153A of the Act is to be treated as return\nfiled under section 139(1) of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee\nhas borrowed this proposition to contend that accordingly fresh\nclaims can be made in returns filed u/s 153A of the Act. But, we find,\nthat these decisions have been rendered while addressing completely\ndifferent

KAMLA CRAFT PACK PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.810/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Kamla Craft Pack Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, 5, Vasukanan, Nr. Lotus Flats, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-38001. Pan: Aaack7985K

68 of Act of Rs.35,00,000/-. 6. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 2. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is general in nature. Therefore we do not find any reason to adjudicate the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee

KIRTI MILEX LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.686/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 M/S. Kirti Milex Ltd., I.T.O, 5, Vasukanan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Nr.Lotus Flats, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

68 of Act of Rs.35,00,000/-. 6. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 2. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is general in nature. Therefore we do not find any reason to adjudicate the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee

M/S. ARIHANT JEWELS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

139 or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a) the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of (i) The amount of income-tax calculated

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)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

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)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

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)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

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)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

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)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

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)

68,86,980/ (c) BMC Development Charges Rs. 1,60,89,732/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 9,43,69,008/- (d) Impact fees Rs. 13,88,880/- (e) Addition to Fixed Assets Rs. 36,66,427/- 4.1. The Assessing Officer further noticed that on verification of e-filing portal, it is noticed that the assessee trust has not filed Form

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1285 & 1286/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & Ita No.1396 & 1397/Ahd/2018 Asstt.Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House Ahmedabad. Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1327 & 1328/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.1414 & 1415/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Ahmedabad. Torrent House Vs. Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri Biren Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench

section (5) of Section 80-IA. In this case, the question that arose for consideration ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 38 before this Court related to computation of the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E, as it then existed, after setting off the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy