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

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

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 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 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 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 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 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

BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid addition be deleted 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and m law the Ld. AO under the directions of Hon’ble DRP erred in disallowing devaluation of inventory amounting to Rs. 1,40,79,555. While making this addition the Ld. AO erred in law and on facts

HAGGLUNDS DRIVES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ( NOW MERGED IN BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) LTD.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid addition be deleted 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and m law the Ld. AO under the directions of Hon’ble DRP erred in disallowing devaluation of inventory amounting to Rs. 1,40,79,555. While making this addition the Ld. AO erred in law and on facts

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. ELITECORE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1728/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy.Cit Elitecore Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Circle-2(1)(1) बनाम/ (Now Merged With Sterlite Ahmedabad Technolgies Limited) V/S. 904, Silicon Tower, B/H. Pariseema Building Off. C.G. Road Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaace 6815G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 04/09/2019, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Dcit Vs. Elitecore Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2011-12

127. The Ld.AR also objected to the conclusion of AO that the payment is not genuine and explained that all necessary documents were already submitted to AO and the same is already mentioned that in his order about the same. 8.10. It is noted that the assessee incurred Product Certification Expenses amounting to Rs.60,57,180/- paid to non-resident

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL

Accordingly dismissed.\n18.9 Based on the findings and conclusions set out hereinabove, the\nappeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by\nthe assessee is partly allowed

TDS\nand interest charged thereon.\nHowever, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of consultancy fees\namounting to Rs.2,18,58,050/-, incurred by the assessee in respect of\nregulatory and technical consultancy services obtained from Quality\nExecutive Partners Inc., USA, for obtaining approvals from the USFDA for\nits manufacturing facility at Baska. The CIT(A) was of the view

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

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

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

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

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

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India