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

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

3) read with section 144B of the Act on 16.09.2021, determining total\nincome at Rs. 5,48,37,350/-. This included an addition of Rs.\n4,86,42,214/- under section 68 of the Act for unexplained cash credits and\nan addition of Rs. 21,36,579/- for disallowance of certain expenses\nunder section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. GIRISHKUMAR AMRATLAL BHANDARI HUF, HIMATNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

3) read with section 144B of the Act on 16.09.2021, determining total\nincome at Rs.5,48,37,350/-. This included an addition of Rs.\n4,86,42,214/- under section 68 of the Act for unexplained cash credits and\nan addition of Rs.21,36,579/- for disallowance of certain expenses\nunder section

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of\nthe Assessing Officer is restored

3) read with section 144B of the Act on 16.09.2021, determining total\nincome at Rs.5,48,37,350/-. This included an addition of Rs.\n4,86,42,214/- under section 68 of the Act for unexplained cash credits and\nan addition of Rs.21,36,579/- for disallowance of certain expenses\nunder section

SHRI HIRALAL D. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), , AHMEDABAD

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

172 (Bom). The relevant paras of the judgment read as follows: “12. Once it is held that the assessment finalized on 29.12.2000 has attained finality, then the deduction allowed under section 80 HHC of the Income-tax Act as well as the loss computed under the assessment dated 29-12-2000 would attain finality. In such a case

SHRI HIRALAL D. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), , AHMEDABAD

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

172 (Bom). The relevant paras of the judgment read as follows: “12. Once it is held that the assessment finalized on 29.12.2000 has attained finality, then the deduction allowed under section 80 HHC of the Income-tax Act as well as the loss computed under the assessment dated 29-12-2000 would attain finality. In such a case

SHAILESHKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) (NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Act, which has been deleted by us, the disallowance of interest cannot survive. Accordingly, Ground No. 6 is also allowed. 16. With respect to Ground Number 7 (disallowance of Interest expenses of Rs. 35.21 lakhs), the counsel for the assessee submitted that this interest payment is with respect to loans taken in earlier assessment years. Further

GITABEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3– addition on merits. The primary ground raised was that the reassessment notice under section 148 was issued mechanically and without any independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It was contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Unit, without the Assessing Officer forming his own satisfaction

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

NAMRATA ALPIT PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 606-607/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: (2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Namrata Alpit Patel, Income Tax Officer, 110-, Yoginagar Township, Opp. Vs. Ward-1(3)(2), Prabhuta Marriage Hall, Chhani Vadodara. Baroda-391740

3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,92,172/- made under section 68

NAMRATA ALPIT PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 606-607/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: (2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Namrata Alpit Patel, Income Tax Officer, 110-, Yoginagar Township, Opp. Vs. Ward-1(3)(2), Prabhuta Marriage Hall, Chhani Vadodara. Baroda-391740

3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,92,172/- made under section 68

ACIT ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us.

172 Less: Set off of Income from 1,52,01,468 other sources 2,38,86,742 Carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation ITA No. 2084/Ahd/2024 [ACIT vs. Elecon Engineering Company Ltd.] A.Y. 2020-21 - 5 – 9. From the above table its apparent that full effect of depreciation was not given in AY 2020-21 and its eligible to carry forward

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

68 (unexplained credits) and 69C (unexplained expenditure). Further the DR stated that there are violations of provisions of the Act such as Section 40A(3), non-compliance with TDS provisions, etc. and the assessee has not provided the details of expenses which will determine whether they are incurred wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business, whether they

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

68 (unexplained credits) and 69C (unexplained expenditure). Further the DR stated that there are violations of provisions of the Act such as Section 40A(3), non-compliance with TDS provisions, etc. and the assessee has not provided the details of expenses which will determine whether they are incurred wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business, whether they

AANYA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rifaur Rahman

section 68 of the Act. He further observed that the assessee has alleged payment of interest on these loans which were termed as bogus, therefore, the expenses claimed in the shape of interest deserves to be disallowed. He disallowed such interest expenditure and made addition of Rs.3,01,277/-. 5. Dissatisfied with the additions, the assessee carried the matter

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act. Having held the said amount to be revenue in nature applying the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd.(supra), when the amount has been spread over a period of six years, no error is committed by both the authorities. Once the expenditure is held

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act. Having held the said amount to be revenue in nature applying the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd.(supra), when the amount has been spread over a period of six years, no error is committed by both the authorities. Once the expenditure is held

M/S. 9TH STREET ARCHITECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3– assessment order under section 154 by holding that the unaccounted income of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- ought to have been taxed under section 69A read with section 115BBE instead of being treated as normal business income. 4. Aggrieved by the rectification order passed under section 154, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned