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

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 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 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 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 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 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

RANJITSINH NARSINH VAGHELA,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.451/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13\nRanjitsinh Narsinh Vaghela\n3337, Nr. Palaiya Mahakali\nMandir\nPethapur, Gandhinagar\nGandhinagar – 382 610\nबनाम /\nv/s.\nThe Income Tax Officer\nWard-3\nGandhinagar\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AFEPV 3269 D\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Hardik Vora, Advocate\nRevenue by :\nShri R.N. Dso

Section 10(37) of the Act on account of\ncompensation received for the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land\nsituated at Survey Nos.56/1 and 56/2, Dholakuva, Gandhinagar.\nThe brief facts relating to land and its dispute are summarized below form\nthe order of AO\n2. 1. Shri Abhraji Ataji Thakor, Shri Baldevji Ataji Thakor, and Shri Ambaji\nAtaji Thakor (Thakor Brothers

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

10 194\n89 091\nAdvertisement Expenses\n5 29 084\n60 156\nRates & Taxes\n1333\nAudit Fees\n30 000\n4800\nOther Expenses\n1 77 309\n1 34 983\nTotal\n55 83 820\n32 24 640\n\nFurther, during the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration\nthe learned AO in his notice dated

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2014-15 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd. Ahmedabad. ‘Apollo House’ Rashmi Society Nr.Mithakhali Six Roads Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacg 7248 P

TDS as per section 195(6) of the Act relating to various parties. One among this is Mr.Binod Shah, Form No.15CB clearly mentioned that he belongs to Nepal and he was paid commission 72,1000/- on 5.6.2013 and also Rs.2,41,966/- on the very same day. However, these copies of the chart, Form no.15CB and form no.CA were

M/S. J.R. CONSTRUCTION CO.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11

34,200/- after disallowing the claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act of Rs.1,21,48,860/- and Rs.1,06,014/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CITA). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. As regards ground no.1

MIRANT NAVINBHAI PARIKH,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT ,CIRCLE INT.TAXA., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountnat Member & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

34,220 pertains to the TDS credit of deceased father of the appellant whose corresponding Interest income of Rs.13,42,190 has already been offered to tax by the appellant while filing his return of income for AY 2018-19. It is submitted that it be so held now. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that once

SOPHOS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

TDS of INR 5,78,321/-. 5. Validity of the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CTT(A) erred in observing that the Ld. Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) be directed to verify the claim of the Appellant in relation to refund of excess

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

34 ITR 10 (SC) ii. Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom) iii. CIT vs. R. B. Rungta & Co. (1963) 50 ITR 233 (Bom) 23. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the DRP/AO and submitted that the payment to non-recognized trust is not business loss. 24. We have heard both the parties and perused

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

34 ITR 10 (SC) ii. Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom) iii. CIT vs. R. B. Rungta & Co. (1963) 50 ITR 233 (Bom) 23. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the DRP/AO and submitted that the payment to non-recognized trust is not business loss. 24. We have heard both the parties and perused