SHAILESHKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) (NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2,27,719/- were Shaileshkumar Dahyabhai Patel vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 5– disallowed. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining total income at ₹1,79,22,447/- and also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A, 271AAC and 272A(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

ACIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DR K R SHROFF FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\n29

b) if any land, building or other property of the trust or institution is,\nor continues to be, made available for the use of any person referred\nto in sub-section (3), for any period during the previous year\nwithout charging adequate rent or other compensation;\n\n(c) if any amount is paid by way of salary, allowance

SANDEEP MOHANRAJ SINGHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE4(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

68 of I.T. Act, 1961, is not sustainable….” 11. The Revenue has been unable to controvert the findings of Ld. CIT(A) regarding the source of funds utilised by Arrow for acquisition of shares of the assessee trust. The assessee had not only established the genuineness of the transactions but also brought on record evidences to establish the creditworthiness

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) at page 19 and at pages 21 to 22 of the order in support of his contention that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically concluded that the assessee did not carry out any business activity and also in absence of any evidence from the appellant’s side that such borrowing is directly linked with granting of such loan

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) at page 19 and at pages 21 to 22 of the order in support of his contention that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically concluded that the assessee did not carry out any business activity and also in absence of any evidence from the appellant’s side that such borrowing is directly linked with granting of such loan

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) at page 19 and at pages 21 to 22 of the order in support of his contention that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically concluded that the assessee did not carry out any business activity and also in absence of any evidence from the appellant’s side that such borrowing is directly linked with granting of such loan

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) at page 19 and at pages 21 to 22 of the order in support of his contention that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically concluded that the assessee did not carry out any business activity and also in absence of any evidence from the appellant’s side that such borrowing is directly linked with granting of such loan

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) at page 19 and at pages 21 to 22 of the order in support of his contention that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically concluded that the assessee did not carry out any business activity and also in absence of any evidence from the appellant’s side that such borrowing is directly linked with granting of such loan

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) at page 19 and at pages 21 to 22 of the order in support of his contention that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically concluded that the assessee did not carry out any business activity and also in absence of any evidence from the appellant’s side that such borrowing is directly linked with granting of such loan

SAVLI TALUKA SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EMPLOYEES CO OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1772/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Savli Taluka Secondary & The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Higher Secondary Employees Ward-1(2)(2) V/S. Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. Vadodara – 390 007 18, Rayakaka Park Savli Desar Road Vadodara – 391 770. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafas 6647 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Bakshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm:

b) of the Act were issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer ("JAO") and not the faceless assessing officer ("FAO"). Addition of Rs.96,82,541/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in making addition of Rs.96,82,541/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. The learned

NARANBHAI SAMATBHAI BHARWAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIR DEVRAJBHAI NARANBHAI BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

68 section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

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

270A for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

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

270A for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

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

270A for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

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

270A for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

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

270A for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

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

270A for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order

GIVE FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the primary matter involved in all the Assessment

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68,23,652/-. 8.(a) Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in giving direction to tax income from investment under the head capital gain ignoring fact that income of the trust is required to tax by applying section 11 & 12 of the Act only. Give Foundation vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– (b) Ld. NFAC also erred