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

section 2(19AA) of the Act as a going concern, being demerged, has not been fulfilled. Further, the A.O has pointed out that out of total shares of Sterling i.e. 2,68,01,490 shares; 2,00,510 shares were purchased in F.Y.2006-07, 2,50

AANYA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rifaur Rahman

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and interest of Rs.3,01,277/- alleged to have been paid on such non-genuine unsecured loans. 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of property development and civil contractor. It has filed its return of income on 20.9.2013 declaring loss of Rs.6

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 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding that in cases where sales

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 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding that in cases where sales

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 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding that in cases where sales

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

50,664 41,986 11.75% 8173% 7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2

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

50,664 41,986 11.75% 8173% 7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2

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

50,664 41,986 11.75% 8173% 7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2

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

50,664 41,986 11.75% 8173% 7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2

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

Appeal is dismissed

68, 350/-. 6 Levy of interest u/s 234 A/B/C & D of the Act is not justified. I.T.A Nos. 1541 & 1643/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 3 Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend

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

Appeal is dismissed

68, 350/-. 6 Levy of interest u/s 234 A/B/C & D of the Act is not justified. I.T.A Nos. 1541 & 1643/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 3 Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah vs. ACIT & ACIT vs. Shri Jigar Jashwantlal Shah 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend

MOHAN BHAGWATPRASAD AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrio. P. Meena & Mrs. Madumita Roy

Section 2(22) of the Act. Hence, question No.2 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 13. In the present case, we observe that 69.71% of the total assets ofSDPL as on 31.3.2015 and 32.45% of the total assets of AIPL as on 31.3.2015 were deployed by the above lender companies by way of total

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,877/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the assessee fails to dispute correctness thereof since the impugned Assessment Year is 2008-09. This latter disallowance figure is confirmed. This ground is partly allowed.” 19 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 42. The Learned

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,877/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the assessee fails to dispute correctness thereof since the impugned Assessment Year is 2008-09. This latter disallowance figure is confirmed. This ground is partly allowed.” 19 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 42. The Learned

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,877/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the assessee fails to dispute correctness thereof since the impugned Assessment Year is 2008-09. This latter disallowance figure is confirmed. This ground is partly allowed.” 19 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 42. The Learned

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(EXEMPTIONS)CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SURAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(SUDA), SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

68,09,114/- 3. Claim of exemptions for additions to fixed assets Rs. 1,07,76,025/- 4. Claim of exemptions for expdt on Gen Dev Rs. 58,59,82,648/- The above were, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in appeal preferred by the assessee. Hence, the instant appeal before us by Revenue. ACIT vs. Surat Urban

VARUN SATYAPAL SINGHAL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3( NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That He Shall Not Be Pressing For Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Of His

50 Taxmann.com 52 (Gujarat), wherein, in Para-4 it is observed as under; 4. Heard Shri Varun Patel, learned advocate for the revenue. Now so far as question no. 2(a) with respect to disallowance of Rs.1,22,13,280/made by the AO u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act being excessive interest paid to I.T.A No. 636/Ahd/2023

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI. SURESHCHANDRA SHANTILAL BRAHMBHATT, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad, Brahmbhatt, Room No. 220, V. 4 Shreenath Bangalow Part-2 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Matrushree Party Plot, Near Sachin Tower, Vejalpur, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-380005 Ahmedabad-380051, Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Actpb8904H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Ar & Sh. Parimalsinh Parmar, Ar Revenue By: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2024

section 143(3) of the Act . 2.5 Thus, the AO made the additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 2,09,50,000/- u/s 68

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

50,66441,986 11.75% 8173% 7 3001-4000 15,96,18,53445,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 2