DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

127 15.71% 23.14% 3 501-1000 10,87,10,7351,21,084 33.88% 57.02% 4 1001-1500 4,18,12,615 33,179 9.28% 66.30% 5 1501-2000 2,46,17,851 13,148 3.68% 69.98% 6 2001-3000 10,76,50,66441,986 11.75% 8173% 7 3001-4000 15,96,18,53445,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,000 may be charged to depreciation in each year over the next five years. There are several methods used to calculate depreciation. The full value of costs that are not capital expenditures must be deducted in the year they are incurred. 46 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,000 may be charged to depreciation in each year over the next five years. There are several methods used to calculate depreciation. The full value of costs that are not capital expenditures must be deducted in the year they are incurred. 46 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,000 may be charged to depreciation in each year over the next five years. There are several methods used to calculate depreciation. The full value of costs that are not capital expenditures must be deducted in the year they are incurred. 46 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

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)

Section 194-I of the Act as there is no element of income rather it represents the reimbursement of expenses. 127. On the other hand, the Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 128. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue for deducting the TDS

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)

Section 194-I of the Act as there is no element of income rather it represents the reimbursement of expenses. 127. On the other hand, the Learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 128. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue for deducting the TDS

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

M/S. ROQUETTE INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

TDS on advertisement expenses of Rs. 66.55 lakh and legal & professional fee expenses of Rs. 778.49 lakh. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that as per section 40(a)(ia) thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident, on which tax is deductible at source under chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been

INCOME TAX OFFICERS (TDS),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2266/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

2) Act ITA No.2266/Ahd/2017 [ITO (TDS)vs. M/s. Shri Rang Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2010—11 - 12 - 2014 w.e.f. 01.10,2014 whereby the limitation period for passing the order has been extended to seven years from the relevant financial year in which the payment is made or credit is given in substitution of erstwhile six years period

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 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. 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 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