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

23– lenders of the assessee was a wrong approach. Moreover, we find that those lenders have made inconsistent statement as pointed out by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and in such circumstances, we find that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in setting aside the deletion as the Assessing Officer, without taking step

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

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE (JAO-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE1(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68-69 of CIT(A) order). However, the Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the CIT(A) without granting opportunity of hearing, dismissed ITA Nos. 275&299/Ahd/2023 & 692/Ahd/2024 Schaeffler India Ltd. vs. ACIT/ADIT & ACIT vs. Schaeffler India Ltd. Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2019-20 - 4– the appeal and upheld the disallowance of the expenses under Section

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.(A SUCCESSOR OF LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (EARLIER ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HOSUR), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68-69 of CIT(A) order). However, the Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the CIT(A) without granting opportunity of hearing, dismissed ITA Nos. 275&299/Ahd/2023 & 692/Ahd/2024 Schaeffler India Ltd. vs. ACIT/ADIT & ACIT vs. Schaeffler India Ltd. Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2019-20 - 4– the appeal and upheld the disallowance of the expenses under Section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.( ERSTWHILE LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68-69 of CIT(A) order). However, the Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the CIT(A) without granting opportunity of hearing, dismissed ITA Nos. 275&299/Ahd/2023 & 692/Ahd/2024 Schaeffler India Ltd. vs. ACIT/ADIT & ACIT vs. Schaeffler India Ltd. Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2019-20 - 4– the appeal and upheld the disallowance of the expenses under Section

DHOLU CONSTRUCTION & PROJECTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

va), ITA No s. 3144 to 3146/Ahd/16 & Others 9 . A.Ys. 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & Others disallowance made by Assessing Officer was just and proper - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of revenue] 15. In view of the above said Jurisdictional High Court, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 16. Now we come to ground relating to restricting depreciation

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68. However, the Ld. CIT-A confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under:- “10.2 I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant and the argument taken by the assessing officer in the light of material available on records. It is the case of the appellant, as evident from an additional submission filed, that

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68. However, the Ld. CIT-A confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under:- “10.2 I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant and the argument taken by the assessing officer in the light of material available on records. It is the case of the appellant, as evident from an additional submission filed, that

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

va), the CIT(A) held that the issue was now conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), which held that employees’ contribution deposited after the statutory due date is not allowable, even if paid before the due date for filing return. Accordingly, this ground was dismissed. A major issue concerned the assessee’s additional claim

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

va), the CIT(A) held that the issue was now conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), which held that employees’ contribution deposited after the statutory due date is not allowable, even if paid before the due date for filing return. Accordingly, this ground was dismissed. A major issue concerned the assessee’s additional claim

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

va), the CIT(A) held that the issue was now conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), which held that employees’ contribution deposited after the statutory due date is not allowable, even if paid before the due date for filing return. Accordingly, this ground was dismissed. A major issue concerned the assessee’s additional claim

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

va), the CIT(A) held that the issue was now conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), which held that employees’ contribution deposited after the statutory due date is not allowable, even if paid before the due date for filing return. Accordingly, this ground was dismissed. A major issue concerned the assessee’s additional claim

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

va), the CIT(A) held that the issue was now conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), which held that employees’ contribution deposited after the statutory due date is not allowable, even if paid before the due date for filing return. Accordingly, this ground was dismissed. A major issue concerned the assessee’s additional claim

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

va), the CIT(A) held that the issue was now conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd (2022), which held that employees’ contribution deposited after the statutory due date is not allowable, even if paid before the due date for filing return. Accordingly, this ground was dismissed. A major issue concerned the assessee’s additional claim

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:

va) of the Act i.e. date by which the concerned assessee was required as an employer to credit employees' contribution to the employees' account in the Provident Fund under the Provident Fund Act and/or in the ESI Fund under the ESI Act.” However, the ld. AR before us has submitted that the due date for depositing the employee’s contribution

VIDRES INDIA CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

va) read with Section 2(24)(x) in as much as the assessee has paid such contribution before the end of accounting year for Vidres India Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT Asst.Year –2013-14 all months except for the month of February and March and the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. GSRTC

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

va) of the Act and observed that the assessee shall be entitled to ITA.Nos.1285/Ahd/2017 & 7 others A.Y.2009-10 21 deduction of such amount while computing the income referred to in section 28, if said sum has been credited by the assessee to employees’ account in the relevant fund/(s) on or before due date i.e. date by which