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

68,01,490 shares; 2,00,510 shares were purchased in F.Y.2006-07, 2,50,000 shares were purchased in F.Y.2007-08 and 31,000 shares were purchased in F.Y2009-10. The balance of 2,63,19,980 shares of Sterling were purchased before the Treasury Segment came into existence i.e. AY 2007-08. According to AO the appellant has not reflected

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

Section 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loans, despite the fact that the Assessee could not substantiate the same with cogent documentary evidences. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,98,14

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 on account of unsecured loans, despite the fact that the Assessee could not substantiate the same with cogent documentary evidences. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,98,14

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 on account of unsecured loans, despite the fact that the Assessee could not substantiate the same with cogent documentary evidences. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,98,14

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

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)

Section 2(15) read with proviso 1 & 2 were held to be applicable with the facts of the assessee’s case. Therefore the A.O. denied exemption u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act and the assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.40,51,98,900/- by making the following disallowances: (a) Revenue Expenditure

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

14,810/- inclusive of interest u/s 244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed

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

14,810/- inclusive of interest u/s 244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed

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

14,810/- inclusive of interest u/s 244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed

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

14,810/- inclusive of interest u/s 244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed

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

Appeal is dismissed

section 56(2) (vii) (c) will also be applicable on this additional shares of 14,800 shares which were disproportionate allotment in the hands of appellant for which the income has to be computed as per the provisions of the I. T. Act. 3.8. It has been noticed that the AO has derived the value @ 255 per share

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

Appeal is dismissed

section 56(2) (vii) (c) will also be applicable on this additional shares of 14,800 shares which were disproportionate allotment in the hands of appellant for which the income has to be computed as per the provisions of the I. T. Act. 3.8. It has been noticed that the AO has derived the value @ 255 per share

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

68 of the Act? 7. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 32,95,776/- u/s. 269SS of the Act? 8. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making disallowance of Rs.75

KIRTI MILEX LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.686/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 M/S. Kirti Milex Ltd., I.T.O, 5, Vasukanan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Nr.Lotus Flats, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

68 of Act of Rs.35,00,000/-. 6. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 2. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is general in nature. Therefore we do not find any reason to adjudicate the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee

KAMLA CRAFT PACK PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.810/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Kamla Craft Pack Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, 5, Vasukanan, Nr. Lotus Flats, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-38001. Pan: Aaack7985K

68 of Act of Rs.35,00,000/-. 6. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 2. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is general in nature. Therefore we do not find any reason to adjudicate the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee