IRM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1590/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Irm Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Irm House, बनाम/ Of Income Tax, V/S. Off. C.G Raod, Circle 2(1)(1), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaci3678M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr-Dr

10–11. We note that the assessment was framed under section 144 due to non-compliance with statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1). Thereafter, in appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued several hearing notices, and the assessee did file written submissions. However, on perusal of the appellate order, particularly paragraph 6.8, we find that

OM YASH PROJECTS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.40/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2023-24 Om Yash Projects Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Office No. 1113, Aaron Spectra, बनाम/ Ward-3(1)(1), V/S. Rajpath Rangoli Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aacco4734C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kaushik Kejriwal & Ms. Kushboo Shah, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Additional / Joint From The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Dated 26.11.2024, In Connection With The Intimation Under Section 143(1) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2023-24, Issued By The Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bangalore, Dated 09.01.2024. Om Yash Projects Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2023-24

46,82,297/-, reflecting the deduction made by government authorities. The CPC, Bangalore processed the return under section 143(1) and restricted the TDS credit to Rs. 2,26,56,755/-, disallowing Rs. 20,25,542/- by proportionately reducing the TDS claim to match the turnover reported in the books. As a result, instead of processing a refund

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

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)

46 vii) ITAT Order dated 27.10.2023 A.Y. 2011-12 ITA No. 242/Ahd/2012 para 64 The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has filed Form 8 dated 24.05.2024 under Section 158A of the Act stating that the question of law regarding Section 80IB of the Act is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Department vide report dated

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)

46 vii) ITAT Order dated 27.10.2023 A.Y. 2011-12 ITA No. 242/Ahd/2012 para 64 The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has filed Form 8 dated 24.05.2024 under Section 158A of the Act stating that the question of law regarding Section 80IB of the Act is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Department vide report dated

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)

46 vii) ITAT Order dated 27.10.2023 A.Y. 2011-12 ITA No. 242/Ahd/2012 para 64 The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has filed Form 8 dated 24.05.2024 under Section 158A of the Act stating that the question of law regarding Section 80IB of the Act is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Department vide report dated

THE DY.CIT (INT.-TAXA.)-1, , AHMEDABAD vs. ZYDUS LIFSCIENCE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

46,277,17.00 only towards the TDS and interest respectively under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. 15. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) after considering the assessment order, and submission of the assessee deleted the demand raised by the AO by observing as under: Asstt. Year

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

46,272.51 lacs on which claimed interest of Rs. 19360.59 lacs. Therefore, the AO was of the view that the assessee had diverted the borrowed funds for earning exempted income. The assessee's contention was that the investment during the year was only Rs.102.32 lacs and rest of the investment was made in the earlier years. According

G. B. BUILDERS, ,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT-CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Due Date On 24-11-2014, But Inadvertently Committed An Error Therein Of Depositing This Tds Using Pan Of The Seller Instead Of Pan Of The Appellant (As The Buyer)

10 G.B. Builders vs. ACIT-CPC(TDS) the case of Rajesh Kourani vs. Union Of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Gujarat) to uphold levy of late filing fee of Rs. 74,600/- u/s. 234E of the Act for late filing of TDS statement. However, in our considered view, the issue for consideration in Rajesh Kourani case supra and the issue

JANKI WIND FARM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

10,840/- against\nactual available credit of Rs.7,48,440/-.\nii.\nThat income tax provision of Rs.7,40,475/- was already debited\nto Profit & Loss Account, and the same was again disallowed\nwhile computing income, resulting in double addition and\noverstatement of total income by Rs.7,40,475/-.\n2.2 The AO passed a rectification order dated 23.01.2024 under section\n154

VIJAY M.MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

TDS has been made u/s 194C which shows that the contracted as well as the contractor have themselves treated the relationship as a contractual arrangement. iii. Various government contractees have issued tenders for works contract to the lowest bidder. iv. Ownership risks never vested in the assessee. ITA Nos. 2938/Ahd/2011 & 8 Ors. (Vijay M. Mistry Construction Pvt. Ltd.) A.Ys

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VIJAY M. MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

TDS has been made u/s 194C which shows that the contracted as well as the contractor have themselves treated the relationship as a contractual arrangement. iii. Various government contractees have issued tenders for works contract to the lowest bidder. iv. Ownership risks never vested in the assessee. ITA Nos. 2938/Ahd/2011 & 8 Ors. (Vijay M. Mistry Construction Pvt. Ltd.) A.Ys

HETIKA MAYANKKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice(Retd.) C V Bhadang & Dr.Brr Kumar

46,896/- and the total income was recomputed at Rs.77,84,020/- by the CPC. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed application for rectification u/s 154 on the ITBA. However, it was rejected without assigning any reason and income under the head “Income from other sources” was determined at Rs.27,76,297/- as against Rs.3,68,937/- as shown in return

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

10% adjustment in CUP method and still claiming to have earned almost double NCP% from AEs, there is a gross distance and the figures certainly need a proper verification. 13. Summing up: The above discussions can be summed up as follows: Page 37 of 51 ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 Gujarat Microwax

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

10% adjustment in CUP method and still claiming to have earned almost double NCP% from AEs, there is a gross distance and the figures certainly need a proper verification. 13. Summing up: The above discussions can be summed up as follows: Page 37 of 51 ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 Gujarat Microwax

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

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

TDS on delayed payment charges (viii) Disallowance on upgradation of software expenses (ix) Charging of interest under section 234B on book Profits u/s. 115JB (x) Loss due to foreign exchange difference rate 7. As the first five issues are being covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 3003/Ahd/2010 & ors. relating to A.Ys. 2003- 04 & ors., dated

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

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

TDS on delayed payment charges (viii) Disallowance on upgradation of software expenses (ix) Charging of interest under section 234B on book Profits u/s. 115JB (x) Loss due to foreign exchange difference rate 7. As the first five issues are being covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 3003/Ahd/2010 & ors. relating to A.Ys. 2003- 04 & ors., dated

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

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

TDS on delayed payment charges (viii) Disallowance on upgradation of software expenses (ix) Charging of interest under section 234B on book Profits u/s. 115JB (x) Loss due to foreign exchange difference rate 7. As the first five issues are being covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 3003/Ahd/2010 & ors. relating to A.Ys. 2003- 04 & ors., dated

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

46. The ld.counsel for the assessee thereafter pointed out that in ground No.3.2 an alternate argument had been raised by the assessee with respect to the issue of treatment of amount received from SIMPL for rendering Global P&T Functional services as fee for technical services. The assessee’s alternate contention was that it was merely in the nature