JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

17,39,793 in its return of income. 3.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in adding back the allowance of Rs 9,48,784 under section 14A of the Act in the book profits under the provisions of section 115JB

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(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

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

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

iv) preservation of monuments or places of objects of artistic or historic invents, (v) preservation of environment (including water soil forest and wild life). Ultimately, the Learned AO observed that as soon as the assessee’s case is hit by the amended provision of section 2(15) by virtue of sub Section 8 of section

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

iv) preservation of monuments or places of objects of artistic or historic invents, (v) preservation of environment (including water soil forest and wild life). Ultimately, the Learned AO observed that as soon as the assessee’s case is hit by the amended provision of section 2(15) by virtue of sub Section 8 of section

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

iv) preservation of monuments or places of objects of artistic or historic invents, (v) preservation of environment (including water soil forest and wild life). Ultimately, the Learned AO observed that as soon as the assessee’s case is hit by the amended provision of section 2(15) by virtue of sub Section 8 of section

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

iv) preservation of monuments or places of objects of artistic or historic invents, (v) preservation of environment (including water soil forest and wild life). Ultimately, the Learned AO observed that as soon as the assessee’s case is hit by the amended provision of section 2(15) by virtue of sub Section 8 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

2 Hafsabibi 23,38,000 A Statement giving explanation on Suleman Kothi source of loan is attached herewith vide Paper Book Page no. 171 Confirmation of account is attached vide Paper Book Page 164 Copy of ITR of Lender is attached vide Paper Book Page no. 165 Relevant extracts from bank IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals

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

2 Hafsabibi 23,38,000 A Statement giving explanation on Suleman Kothi source of loan is attached herewith vide Paper Book Page no. 171 Confirmation of account is attached vide Paper Book Page 164 Copy of ITR of Lender is attached vide Paper Book Page no. 165 Relevant extracts from bank IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals

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

2 Hafsabibi 23,38,000 A Statement giving explanation on Suleman Kothi source of loan is attached herewith vide Paper Book Page no. 171 Confirmation of account is attached vide Paper Book Page 164 Copy of ITR of Lender is attached vide Paper Book Page no. 165 Relevant extracts from bank IT(SS)A No. 73/Ahd/2025 and others Group Appeals

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

68, 350/-. 6 Levy of interest u/s 234 A/B/C & D of the Act is not justified. I.T.A Nos. 1541 & 1643/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 3 Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend

SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

68, 350/-. 6 Levy of interest u/s 234 A/B/C & D of the Act is not justified. I.T.A Nos. 1541 & 1643/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 3 Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

iv) Aditya Birla Mincas Worldwide Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com 317/69 SOT 18 (URO) (Mum - ITAT). The assessee had not classified this transaction as international transaction. However, guarantee commission was fixed at 0.50%. (v) Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2015] 155 ITD 1123/63 taxmann.com 179 (Hyd. - Trib.). The assessee admitted corporate guarantee as international transaction, then

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. ANILKUMAR OCHHAVLAL DESAI, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer?

17-08-2018: I.T.A No. 292/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 DCIT Vs. Anilkumar Ochhavlal Desai (i) without appreciating the fact that the Legal Heir of the assessee failed to follow the procedure laid down for linking Legal Heir to the deceased assessee, which require due submission of all the documents including death certificate of the deceased assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

17,66,544/- only. 33.1 In aggregate, the AO disallowed the excess depreciation of Rs. 68,00,471/- claimed on car, office equipment and UPS and added to the total income of the assessee. 34. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who deleted the disallowances/addition made by the AO by following the order of his predecessor