SHRI ALTAFHUSEN MAHEMUDUL HASAN SIDDIKI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.577/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.969/Ahd/2015 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Altafhusen M. Siddiki, Prop Dcit, Circle-9 Of Sunmoon Roadways 6/D/1, Vs Ahmedabad Pursottam Estate, Nr. Cozy Hotel, Ranipur Patia, Sarkhej Road, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan No.Arsps3765P

Section 40A(3) and rule 6DD that they are intended to regulate the business transactions and to prevent the use of unaccounted money or reduce the chances to use black- money for business transactions.. If the payment is made by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or a crossed bank draft then it will be easier

ITO MEHSANA WARD 5 KADI, KADI vs. THE GOZARIA PEOPLES CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, GOZARIA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumari.Ta. No.1819/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. The Gozaria Peoples Co- Mehsana Ward 5, Operative Credit Society Kadi. Limited, Gozaria 2, Main Bazar At Gozaria Ta. Mehsana Dist. Mehsana-383825 [Pan No.Aaajt1283G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri B K Patel, Ar Respondent By: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. Dr

194A (3), it appears that it provides for exemption from deducting Tax Deducted at Source from the income on interest other than interest on securities as the cooperative societies other than cooperative banks meaning thereby that the cooperative banks are liable to deduct TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks

DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

194A of the Act, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was held to be mandatory. The argument that similar interest payments had been allowed in earlier years was also not accepted, as each assessment year is to be considered independently. In view of the above, the interest expenses were disallowed, and an addition of Rs.8

DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

194A of the Act, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was held to be mandatory. The argument that similar interest payments had been allowed in earlier years was also not accepted, as each assessment year is to be considered independently. In view of the above, the interest expenses were disallowed, and an addition of Rs.8

F.M.AMIN CO(DASHRATH),DASHRATH vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

68 OF INCOME TAX ACT MADE BY LEARNED A.O. WHICH WERE RECEIVED FROM THREE DEPOSITORS WITH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCES. THIS ADDITION NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 2) THE LEARNED A.O. TAXED THE ABOVE AMOUNT U/S 115BBE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND LEVIED TAX AT 60 PERCENTAGE OF THE AMOUNT ADDED. THIS BEING GENUINE TRANSACTION THE APPLICATION OF THIS SECTION

M/S. BAJAJ FOODS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

68,63,587/- 8. The disallowance was made by the A.O. noting that the assessee had borrowed interest bearing funds by way of secured loans to the extent of Rs. 217.23 lacs and I.T.A No. 1647/Ahd/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 3 M/s. Bajaj Foods Ltd, vs. ITO paid interest thereon amounting to Rs. 25,97,905/-. The A.O. also

SHREE HARI ENTERPRISE ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nfollowing terms:\n\ni) Issue No

sections": [ "263", "143(3)", "142(1)", "194-I", "194J", "40(a)(ia)", "68", "194A" ], "issues": "Whether the Pr.CIT was justified

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

3, the assessee has raised the following grievances: 3. (A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in upholding partial disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts

KARNAVATI POLYBLENDS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 68 of the Act which was in turn confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 3. During the course of assessment proceeding it was found that the assessee was received of unsecured loan of Rs. 31,54,027/- from one Mahesh Tax Fab during the year under consideration; the same was reflected from

MOHAN BHAGWATPRASAD AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrio. P. Meena & Mrs. Madumita Roy

194A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) wherein it was held that where assessee received loan from two companies which was substantially involved in money lending business, tribunal rightly concluded that sub-clause

SAMIR SYNTHETICS MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Him.

68 to 69 of the paper book pertaining to written submission made before the ld. CIT(A) explaining that payment made to Naveen Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. was towards reimbursement of expenses for which no TDS was required to be deducted. The ld. counsel has also submitted that part of the payment towards repayment of loan was made

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR DEVICHAND LODHA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).The Ld.Cit(A) Has Sustained The Impugned Penalty.

68,670/-, in proceedings under section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The brief facts of the case is that during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) the assessing officer has made disallowance of Rs. 6,86,697/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the act for not deducting

HETIKA MAYANKKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice(Retd.) C V Bhadang & Dr.Brr Kumar

68,937/- as shown in return. 4. The assessee submitted that the AO has made addition of Rs.43,76,770/- on account of the mismatch between the income as per return and the amount as per form-26AS. The assessee had furnished the clarification with regard to the discrepancy and reconciled the difference. It was pointed out that the interest

SABRI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1019/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ A/2/236, Gidc, Nandesari, Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Baroda – 391 340. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 9406 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

68,421/-. 10. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” Respectfully following the same, we have no hesitation in reversing the orders of authorities below. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 21. The next issue raised by the assessee is that