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

v. ITO (1991) 191 ITR 667 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to Rule 6DD of the Rules held as follows: 7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of Rule 6DD. The Section must be read along with the Rule

SHRI ALTAFHUSEN M. SIDDIKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), 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

v. ITO (1991) 191 ITR 667 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to Rule 6DD of the Rules held as follows: 7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of Rule 6DD. The Section must be read along with the Rule

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:

V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 30/07/2022 & 20/07/2022 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. Since the assessee is same, for the sake of convenience

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:

V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 30/07/2022 & 20/07/2022 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. Since the assessee is same, for the sake of convenience

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)

3,00,000/-, 20-07-2016 of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 14,02-2017 of Rs. 5,00,000/- all totaling Rs. 15,50,000/- by cheque transactions and paid interest of Rs. 1,02,740/- and also made TDS of Rs. 10,274 to Shri Pravinbhai Mavani. Further the entire loans were repaid in November and I.T.A

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

V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR\n\nसुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 17/12/2024\nघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 07/02/2025\n\nआदेश/ORDER\n\nPER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nThe above appeal is filed by the assessee against order passed by the ld.Pr.Commissioner of Income-1, Ahmedabad in exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT I.T.A. No.1718/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Hetika Mayankumar Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3, Jagjivan Park, Ward-5(2)(2), Nr. Swati Society, Ahmedabad. Opp. Ishwar Bhavan, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. [PAN No.ANUPP4701E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri SN Divatia with Shri Samir Vora, ARs, Respondent by: Shi Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DR Date

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:

v. Similar disallowance was made by the ld. CIT(A) in the own case of the assessee pertaining to the A.Y. 2010-11. The Sabri Chemicals Pvt.Ltd vs. ACIT A.Y. 2012-13 submissions made by the assessee for the year under consideration were identical as made in the A.Y. 2010-11. In view of above, the AO disallowed the deduction

ISPATAM METALS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WAD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result all the grounds raised on merits of the addition made are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2018-19

V. M. Krishnamurty, (1998) (7 SCC 123) and B. Madhuri Goud V.B. Damodar Reddy, (2012) 12 SC 693,since sufficient cause has been adduced by the assessee for the delay, the same needs to be condoned to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the delay in filing of present appeal of 69 days is condoned. 4. Taking up the appeal