THE DCIT (INT.TAXA.), VADODARA vs. SHRI AJOY KANAIYALAL KHANDHERIA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.451/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali Ward-3 V/S. Mandir Gandhinagar Pethapur, Gandhinagar Gandhinagar – 382 610 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afepv 3269 D (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 19/01/2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Which Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Dated 30/12/2019, Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]. Ranjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

section 10(37) of the Act on account of compensation received for the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land situated at Survey Nos. 56/1 and 56/2, Dholakuva, Gandhinagar. The brief facts relating to land and its dispute are summarized below form the order of AO – 2.1. Shri Abhraji Ataji Thakor, Shri Baldevji Ataji Thakor, and Shri Ambaji Ataji Thakor (Thakor Brothers

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), , AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD.(ON BEHALF OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2021/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ (On Behalf Of Amalgamating Cricle-1(3), Vs. 1St Floor, B-109, Company, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. 801-804, 8Th Floor, Abhishree Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Ahmedabad-380015 Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9421H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

TDS is warranted. 129. Before parting, it is also important to note that the ITAT in the own case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 1718/AHD/2011 has set aside the identical issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying whether payees have included the amount received from the assessee

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2021/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ (On Behalf Of Amalgamating Cricle-1(3), Vs. 1St Floor, B-109, Company, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. 801-804, 8Th Floor, Abhishree Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Ahmedabad-380015 Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9421H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

TDS is warranted. 129. Before parting, it is also important to note that the ITAT in the own case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 1718/AHD/2011 has set aside the identical issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying whether payees have included the amount received from the assessee

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case