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:

43B of the Act for unpaid VAT liability and Rs.12,83,000/- under Section 68 as unexplained unsecured loans

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:

43B of the Act for unpaid VAT liability and Rs.12,83,000/- under Section 68 as unexplained unsecured loans

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.191/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Pr.Commissioner बनाम/ Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Of Income V/S. Race Course Tax-1 Vadodaa – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 "ायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcm 7439 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr

section 43B of the Act, is therefore upheld . Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT Asst. Year : 2017-18 13 24. With respect to the last issue of Capital Grants & Subsidies and Consumer Contribution written back by the assessee on account of which addition was made by the AO but was found to be short by the Ld.PCIT

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

68 of the Act and he confirmed the addition of ₹60,50,000/- as unexplained cash credits. 6. In relation to the disallowance of interest expenditure of ₹8,98,956/- under section 69C of the Act, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that once the principal loan itself was held to be unexplained, the interest claimed thereon could

THE ACIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE,, GODHRA vs. M/S. PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD.,, BARODA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

section 43B of the Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is manufacturing of stainless steel products. The return for the year under consideration was electronically filed on 16.09.2010 declaring total loss of Rs. 9,68

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SHRI CHIMANBHAI JOITRAM PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 591/Ahd/2020 (निर्धररवरध/ Assessment Years : 2014-15)

68 of the Act.?" 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made on account of unpaid VAT liability under section 43B

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, the captioned appeals are

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

43B are not applicable. However, the AO held that assessee had not paid the said amount before the due date of filing of the return of income under s.139(1) of the Act. The AO disallowed Rs.2,49,82,597/- under s.43B of the Act. 12. The learned CIT(A) by his detailed order has held that the fact that

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, the captioned appeals are

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

43B are not applicable. However, the AO held that assessee had not paid the said amount before the due date of filing of the return of income under s.139(1) of the Act. The AO disallowed Rs.2,49,82,597/- under s.43B of the Act. 12. The learned CIT(A) by his detailed order has held that the fact that

SHRIDEV PROCON LTD.,(EARLIER KNOWN AS DEV PROCON LTD),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.300/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shridev Procon Limited Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ (Earlier Known As Dev Procon Income Tax, V/S. Limited) Central Circle – 2 (1) Dev House Ahmedabad B/H. Rajpat Club, S.G.Highway Ahmedabad – 380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccd 1788 P (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar & Shri Gulab Thakor, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

68 is confirmed, and this ground of appeal is dismissed. Ground 3 – Addition made by AO u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delay in depositing PF/ESIC contributions. Shridev Procon Ltd. (Earlier known as Dev Procon Ltd.) Asst. Year : 2015-16 11. During assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had delayed depositing employees' contributions toward PF/ESI beyond

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assesse and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 43B of the Act. No distinguishing facts were submitted by the Ld. DR in the present assessment year. Hence, festival allowance is properly allowed by the CIT(A). Now as regards to Misc. expenses, Telephone expenses, Vehicle expenses, the Tribunal observed as under: “24. Ground No.8:- So far as issue involved in ground No. 8 is concerned

THE DCIT, BARODA CIRCLE-1,, BARODA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assesse and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 43B of the Act. No distinguishing facts were submitted by the Ld. DR in the present assessment year. Hence, festival allowance is properly allowed by the CIT(A). Now as regards to Misc. expenses, Telephone expenses, Vehicle expenses, the Tribunal observed as under: “24. Ground No.8:- So far as issue involved in ground No. 8 is concerned

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

43B on account of employees’ contribution of PF in ITA No. 1290/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 204-05. The decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT -II Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 is against the assessee on this issue and the AR has conceded the same before us. Hence, the ground

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

43B on account of employees’ contribution of PF in ITA No. 1290/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 204-05. The decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT -II Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 is against the assessee on this issue and the AR has conceded the same before us. Hence, the ground

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

43B on account of employees’ contribution of PF in ITA No. 1290/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 204-05. The decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT -II Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 is against the assessee on this issue and the AR has conceded the same before us. Hence, the ground

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

43B on account of employees’ contribution of PF in ITA No. 1290/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 204-05. The decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT -II Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 is against the assessee on this issue and the AR has conceded the same before us. Hence, the ground

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

43B on account of employees’ contribution of PF in ITA No. 1290/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 204-05. The decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT -II Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 is against the assessee on this issue and the AR has conceded the same before us. Hence, the ground

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

43B on account of employees’ contribution of PF in ITA No. 1290/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 204-05. The decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT -II Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 is against the assessee on this issue and the AR has conceded the same before us. Hence, the ground

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

43B on account of employees’ contribution of PF in ITA No. 1290/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 204-05. The decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT -II Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 is against the assessee on this issue and the AR has conceded the same before us. Hence, the ground

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. AMBALAL SARABHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,, VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

43B on account of employees’ contribution of PF in ITA No. 1290/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 204-05. The decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT -II Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 is against the assessee on this issue and the AR has conceded the same before us. Hence, the ground