THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2970/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T., M/S Deloitee Haskins & Sells, Circle-1(2), Vs. 31-Nutan Bharat Society, Vadodara. Alkapuri, Baroda.

20,705/- 59,51,111/- 11.1 As per the AO the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s 194-I of the Act with respect to the Banquet charges at the rate of 10% whereas the assessee has deducted the TDS at the rate of 2% prescribed under section

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10 the levy of penalty only for the default to deduct tax at source. The Hon’ble Apex Court noted that it does not speak about the belated remittance of TDS and noting that penalty provisions are to be strictly and literally read, and nothing is to be added or taken out, the Hon’ble Court held that there could

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10 the levy of penalty only for the default to deduct tax at source. The Hon’ble Apex Court noted that it does not speak about the belated remittance of TDS and noting that penalty provisions are to be strictly and literally read, and nothing is to be added or taken out, the Hon’ble Court held that there could

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10 the levy of penalty only for the default to deduct tax at source. The Hon’ble Apex Court noted that it does not speak about the belated remittance of TDS and noting that penalty provisions are to be strictly and literally read, and nothing is to be added or taken out, the Hon’ble Court held that there could

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

10 the levy of penalty only for the default to deduct tax at source. The Hon’ble Apex Court noted that it does not speak about the belated remittance of TDS and noting that penalty provisions are to be strictly and literally read, and nothing is to be added or taken out, the Hon’ble Court held that there could

JYOTI LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. DCIT,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia& Ms. Madhumita Roy

10% under section 195 and made remittance of the net amount accordingly. However, when the related TDS return was processed under section 200A, a short deduction demand was raised on the ground that the tax withholding rate was to apply @ 20

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

10 (other than provisions contained in clause 38 thereof) or section 11 or section 12 apply. In this regard, we draw support from the coordinate bench’s decision in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010–11, where in paragraphs 46 to 51, the Bench categorically noted that the provisions of section 115JB are self-contained and that disallowance made

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CIRCLE-TDS, VADODARA

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-

TDS on the leave encashment paid. Hence, the Revenue Authorities treated the assessee as in default under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 3.2 The Revenue held that the payments are in excess of Rs. 3 lakhs, and since the recipients are neither State Government nor Central Government employees, hence the exemption limit cannot exceed Rs.3 lakhs

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CIRCLE-TDS, VADODARA

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-

TDS on the leave encashment paid. Hence, the Revenue Authorities treated the assessee as in default under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 3.2 The Revenue held that the payments are in excess of Rs. 3 lakhs, and since the recipients are neither State Government nor Central Government employees, hence the exemption limit cannot exceed Rs.3 lakhs

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CIRCLE-TDS, VADODARA

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-

TDS on the leave encashment paid. Hence, the Revenue Authorities treated the assessee as in default under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 3.2 The Revenue held that the payments are in excess of Rs. 3 lakhs, and since the recipients are neither State Government nor Central Government employees, hence the exemption limit cannot exceed Rs.3 lakhs

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CIRCLE-TDS, VADODARA

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-

TDS on the leave encashment paid. Hence, the Revenue Authorities treated the assessee as in default under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 3.2 The Revenue held that the payments are in excess of Rs. 3 lakhs, and since the recipients are neither State Government nor Central Government employees, hence the exemption limit cannot exceed Rs.3 lakhs

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

10(2)(xv) of the 1922 Act 9.3.1 Similarly, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbal Tribunal in the case of Go Airlines (India) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai. [2021] 126 taxmann.com 152 (Mumbai - Trib.)/[2021] 188 ITD 9...wherein it is held that Section 37(1) of the Income

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

10(2)(xv) of the 1922 Act 9.3.1 Similarly, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbal Tribunal in the case of Go Airlines (India) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai. [2021] 126 taxmann.com 152 (Mumbai - Trib.)/[2021] 188 ITD 9...wherein it is held that Section 37(1) of the Income

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

10(2)(xv) of the 1922 Act 9.3.1 Similarly, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbal Tribunal in the case of Go Airlines (India) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai. [2021] 126 taxmann.com 152 (Mumbai - Trib.)/[2021] 188 ITD 9...wherein it is held that Section 37(1) of the Income

STATE BANK OF INDIA BHAVNAGAR PARA BRANCH,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO TDS WARD 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS during the pendency of the writ proceedings, and therefore the assessee could not have deducted tax without violating the court’s directions. 5. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the contentions of the assessee. the Assessing Officer, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.11.2022, held that exemption under section 10

STATE BANK OF INDIA BHAVNAGAR PARA BRANCH,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO TDS WARD 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS during the pendency of the writ proceedings, and therefore the assessee could not have deducted tax without violating the court’s directions. 5. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the contentions of the assessee. the Assessing Officer, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.11.2022, held that exemption under section 10

BACKBONE TARMET NG JV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

TDS pertaining to which was deposited by the assessee by the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Revenue challenged the order of the ITAT before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat who in turn upheld the judgement of the ITAT. The matter was further referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court

SHREE HARI ENTERPRISE ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nfollowing terms:\n\ni) Issue No

10,423/- in the income tax return filed for the year, the transaction with\nAnmol & Sons is not genuine, credible or creditworthy.\n\nIn regard to the above, it is submitted that the responsibility of filing of income\ntax returns and disclosing all the incomes earned lies with the concerned\nperson, non-disclosure of interest income in the Income