AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 311/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 2. 2176/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 3. 2173/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 4. 165/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 5. 287/Ahd/2017 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 6-7 520 & 2013-14 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., 521/Ahd/2018 & Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 8-9 604 & 605/ 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Ahd/2018 & Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K

section 43D is a beneficial provision but the provision iS very clear when it states that " {a} in the case of a scheduled bank the income by way of interest in relation to such categories of bad and^dou^btful debts as may be prescribed having regard to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India in relation

ARVIND FASHIONS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act on the payments on which TDS was not deducted by the assessee is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the year under consideration, no TDS was deducted as the same was contingent liability and the bills were not issued which were issued subsequently and on that the TDS

M/S. SKAPS INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,(INTE. TAXN)-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for both the assessment years

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS officer levied interest under Section 201(1A) for the failure to withhold tax on the payments. 4. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid order before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) held that the payments received by Teems Electric (TEC) were business receipts and that, since TEC had a permanent establishment (PE) in India, the income from those

M/S. SKAPS INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,(INNT. TAXN)-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for both the assessment years

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS officer levied interest under Section 201(1A) for the failure to withhold tax on the payments. 4. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid order before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) held that the payments received by Teems Electric (TEC) were business receipts and that, since TEC had a permanent establishment (PE) in India, the income from those

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses

LYSA TRADING LLP,AHMEDABAD,GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2022-23 Lysa Trading Llp Ito, Ward-1(2)(3) Corporate House-2, Shilp Vs Ahmedabad. Corporate Park Rajpath Rangoli Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaifl 3030 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 194- I has been deducted by the payer. The aforementioned amount was stated to be inclusive of “CAM” Charges of Rs.17,08,908/-,the 3 recovery of which was agreed between the assessee and “SEPL”. The assessee had clarified that during the impugned year, it had incurred total amount of Rs.34,29,816/- towards “CAM” charges, out of which

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

112/- was filed on 4th October, 2010. Subsequently, the case was selected under scrutiny by issuing of notice u/s. 143(2) of the act on 25th August, 2011. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of road construction and maintenance machinery. Further facts of the case are discussed under the different grounds of appeal filed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

112/- was filed on 4th October, 2010. Subsequently, the case was selected under scrutiny by issuing of notice u/s. 143(2) of the act on 25th August, 2011. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of road construction and maintenance machinery. Further facts of the case are discussed under the different grounds of appeal filed

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

112/- was filed on 4th October, 2010. Subsequently, the case was selected under scrutiny by issuing of notice u/s. 143(2) of the act on 25th August, 2011. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of road construction and maintenance machinery. Further facts of the case are discussed under the different grounds of appeal filed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

112/- was filed on 4th October, 2010. Subsequently, the case was selected under scrutiny by issuing of notice u/s. 143(2) of the act on 25th August, 2011. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of road construction and maintenance machinery. Further facts of the case are discussed under the different grounds of appeal filed

THE ACIT, (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT PAGUTHAN ENERGY CORPORATION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 691/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Acit(Osd) बनाम/ Gujarat Paguthan Range-1, Energy Corporation Pvt. Vs. Ahmedabad Ltd. 6Th Floor, Chanakya Building, Off. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaa Cg7 999 P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

112,03,60,252/-. The book profit was computed at Rs. 286,03,86,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS guidelines and the assessment was completed at a gross total income of Rs. 98,02,16,500/- after making the following additions/disallowances- 1. Disallowance of miscellaneous expenses- Rs. 72,80,514/- . 2. Disallowance under

M/S. SINGHAL STEELS,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, TDS-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

112/- for the FY 2013-14. The deductor/collector, vide his reply dated 01.02.2016 stated that "the said section is not applicable to him as he is a trader". The ITO, TDS

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore