SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

b) to section 249(4). 3.4 In this regard I note that the appellant was liable to pay tax and file the return of income, that he did not file the return of income u/s 139 and even in response to various notices issued and that the appellant was required to pay advance tax (and self-assessment

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld.Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld.Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

249/- to the international transaction entered by the assessee with its AE, HLPL and SIMPL. The upward adjustment proposed by the TPO are tabulated in his order as under: ITA No.2390/Ahd/2018 & 1783/Ahd/2019 with CO 6 10. The assessee objected to the proposed upward adjustment to the DRP, who noted that this issue was under consideration before the DRP consistently

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

249/- to the international transaction entered by the assessee with its AE, HLPL and SIMPL. The upward adjustment proposed by the TPO are tabulated in his order as under: ITA No.2390/Ahd/2018 & 1783/Ahd/2019 with CO 6 10. The assessee objected to the proposed upward adjustment to the DRP, who noted that this issue was under consideration before the DRP consistently

SHAUNAK SHAILESH SHAH ,9, NEELKANTH BUNGLOW, PRAHLADNAGAR, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(4),, 7TH FLOOR, NATURE VIEW BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380009

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1421/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shaunak Shailesh Shah, I.T.O., 9, Neelkanth Bunglow, Vs. Ward-15(4), Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad. Satellite, Ahmedabad.

b) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 2. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in confirming the addition

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. MANJULABEN B. PATEL LEHAL HEIR OF SHRI BIPINBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts

MANJULABEN BIPINBHAI PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE BIPINBHAI P.PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68/ 69A of the IT Act and no expenditure is allowable against such income as per provision 115BBE of the IT Act. (emphasis is supplied on para 8.31 of appellate order). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of receipts