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

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

142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued from time to time, to which the assessee filed replies and furnished necessary information. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made a reference under section 92CA(1) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the arm’s length price in respect of international transactions and specified

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

142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued from time to time, to which the assessee filed replies and furnished necessary information. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made a reference under section 92CA(1) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the arm’s length price in respect of international transactions and specified

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)

142(1) of the Act, the details whereupon were duly filed by the assessee through electronic media on e-proceeding. The assessee had shown total turnover of Rs.65,54,16,69,939/-, on which, net profit before tax has been declared at Rs.24,33,45,21,094/-. The assessee has shown income from house property, capital gain and other sources

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

142(1) on 02.05.2022 and 17.08.2022 and after obtaining the assessee’s responses, completed assessments for all four years on 29.09.2022, accepting the returned income without making any addition in respect of the seized material or surrendered income. Approvals u/s. 153D were also obtained from the Additional CIT. 2.5 The learned PCIT, upon examination of records, was of the view

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

142(1) on 02.05.2022 and 17.08.2022 and after obtaining the assessee’s responses, completed assessments for all four years on 29.09.2022, accepting the returned income without making any addition in respect of the seized material or surrendered income. Approvals u/s. 153D were also obtained from the Additional CIT. 2.5 The learned PCIT, upon examination of records, was of the view

DHARAMTAR MOTORS SERVICES PETROLEUM PRODUCT,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1438 & 2534/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Dharamtar Motor Services Income Tax Officer, Petroleum Product, Vs. Ward 6(1)(4) C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate 903, Ahmedabad. Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabfd9182F

142(1) for the assessment year 2007-08 reads as under: ii) In a return of income filed you have shown unsecured loan of Rs.2,67,65,330/- for this you are requested to furnish details such as Name, amount borrowed from person. From the above, it is beyond doubt that there was no credit on account of loan

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

1)\ndated 12.06.2015 as to why disallowance under section 14A read with Rule\n8D should not be made, considering the nature of investments and exempt\nincome earned therefrom. In response, the assessee submitted details of\nnon-current investments and ledger accounts but did not furnish specific\ndetails of current investments or evidence demonstrating that such\ninvestments were made entirely

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

142(1), accompanied by a detailed questionnaire, was sent, but there was no compliance from the assessee’s side. The assessee, whose income sources included business and other avenues, was summoned on January 8, 2015, under Section 131 to produce necessary documents, but the assessee failed to comply. Throughout the assessment process, multiple requests for clarification and documentation were

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

142(1), accompanied by a detailed questionnaire, was sent, but there was no compliance from the assessee’s side. The assessee, whose income sources included business and other avenues, was summoned on January 8, 2015, under Section 131 to produce necessary documents, but the assessee failed to comply. Throughout the assessment process, multiple requests for clarification and documentation were

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

142(1) of the Act dated 25.06.2013 asking for specific details and documents was issued and served upon the assessee whereupon the details and documents were submitted on 19.08.2013 before the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee has been filing the return of income over a period of time claiming exemption

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

142(1) of the Act dated 25.06.2013 asking for specific details and documents was issued and served upon the assessee whereupon the details and documents were submitted on 19.08.2013 before the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee has been filing the return of income over a period of time claiming exemption

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

142(1) of the Act dated 25.06.2013 asking for specific details and documents was issued and served upon the assessee whereupon the details and documents were submitted on 19.08.2013 before the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee has been filing the return of income over a period of time claiming exemption

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

142(1) of the Act dated 25.06.2013 asking for specific details and documents was issued and served upon the assessee whereupon the details and documents were submitted on 19.08.2013 before the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee has been filing the return of income over a period of time claiming exemption

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

68 of the Act by furnishing the necessary details about the source of share capital and premium received from above mentioned 5 investor companies. 13. Coming to the companies namely M/s. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd., M/s 13.1 With respect to above 3 companies the DDIT in commission report under section 131(1)(d) has submitted that one company namely

MADRESA MOHAMMADIYAN AND PANJATANIYA,DAHOD GUJARAT vs. CIT(E), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Madressa Mohammadiyn & Cit(Exemption) Panjataniya, Madresa Raildings Nehru Bridge B/H. Tower Talav Road, Dahod. Ahmedabad. Pan : Brdmo 8620 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

142(1) it e-filed return on 18.12.2019 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption under section 11. The computation placed on record reflected receipts comprising income from other sources of Rs.1,43,75,919/-, corpus donation of Rs. 19,70,203/-, and aggregate receipts of Rs.1,63,46,122/-. The Assessing Officer further noted cash deposits of Rs.15

M/S GREENWELL ORCHARDS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-3 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

142(1) calling for I.T.A No. 695/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 19 M/s. Greenwell Orchards vs. Pr.CIT various details from the assessee and the assessee also had made detailed replies to the above notice with proper evidences and necessary records which are discussed in para 12 of this order. Thus the Assessing Officer having carried out such detailed enquiries

SHREE GAUTAM LABDHI CON CORP LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

142(1), the assessee furnished its reply on 07.11.2022 alongwith documents. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s reply and documents, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.12,94,507/- under the head of capital gains and also the addition of Rs.62,50,000/- under Section 68

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. M.G.F. GROWTH RESEARCH AND INVESTMENT LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the CO the assessee has taken up jurisdictional issue whereby it has pleaded that the assessment order is time ITA No.2311/Ahd/2016 with CO barred and the ld.CIT(A) has erred in not quashing the assessment order being time barred. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed