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 –

b) of clause (i) of section 80IA(4) and the transferee Enterprise were allowed to claim the deduction for unexpired period during which the transferor Enterprise would have been entitled to claim the deduction. Therefore, the infrastructure facility has to be developed on BOT, BOOT or BOLT or similar arrangement where the investee Enterprise bears the financial and investment risks

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

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)

120. The Learned AR before us submitted that the stock exchange is not providing any service in the nature of technical services. Therefore, the provisions for the TDS under Section 194J of the Act cannot be applied on the payment made by the assessee for the membership subscription and transaction charges. 121. On the other hand, the Learned DR vehemently

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)

120. The Learned AR before us submitted that the stock exchange is not providing any service in the nature of technical services. Therefore, the provisions for the TDS under Section 194J of the Act cannot be applied on the payment made by the assessee for the membership subscription and transaction charges. 121. On the other hand, the Learned DR vehemently

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

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

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, 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