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

135/- per hour is definitely at arm’s length in comparison with the average price of Rs. 717/- or Rs. 682/-, as the case may be. In view of foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on merits. We, therefore, countenance the impugned order on this score.” Analysis

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

135/- per hour is definitely at arm’s length in comparison with the average price of Rs. 717/- or Rs. 682/-, as the case may be. In view of foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on merits. We, therefore, countenance the impugned order on this score.” Analysis

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 143(3) of the Act. 16.9 On perusal of the ledgers of the laborers we note that the payment was made by the assessee periodically after the deduction of TDS. Thus, the assessee cannot be penalized if the laborers have raised the bills at the end of the accounting year. 16.10 We also note that the assessee has shown

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

section 143(3) of the Act. 16.9 On perusal of the ledgers of the laborers we note that the payment was made by the assessee periodically after the deduction of TDS. Thus, the assessee cannot be penalized if the laborers have raised the bills at the end of the accounting year. 16.10 We also note that the assessee has shown

HBC LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 328/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) िनधा"रण वष" Hbc Lifesciences Private Principal Commissioner बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Limited Of Income Tax-3 Vs. B-218, Mayur House, Ahmedabad G.I.D.C., Electronic Estate Sector-25, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382016 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch1407M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr 20/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Pcit’) Dated 25.03.2023 In Exercise Of The Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short], For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018-19 Was Filed By The Assessee On 30.10.2018 Declaring

TDS was made on these payments is, therefore, not found correct. The Ld. PCIT has relied upon CBDT Circular No.5//2012 and the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Apex Laboratories (P) Ltd v DCIT 135 taxmann.com 286 in her order. To invoke the applicability of CBDT Circular and the Apex Court decision, it has to be first established

PIRAMAL FINANCE PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

SECTION 35AC OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO Rs.2,36,08,173/- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of denying the deduction u/s 35AC of the Act on the alleged ground that the amount contributed to the eligible institution is spent for non-eligible

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

TDS needs to be given while giving effect to this order. 53.3 From the above direction, we note that the learned CIT-A has just instructed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee subject to the direction. As such, at the time of hearing the learned DR has not brought any infirmity in the direction given

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

TDS needs to be given while giving effect to this order. 53.3 From the above direction, we note that the learned CIT-A has just instructed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee subject to the direction. As such, at the time of hearing the learned DR has not brought any infirmity in the direction given

SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2020-21

135/- in respect of initial connection charge, disallowance of depreciation, disallowance of interest and employees contribution to EPF being the disallowance of expenses. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of deduction of health and education cess amounting to Rs. 1,52,25,365/-. The Pr. CIT noticed that the company claimed additional depreciation under sub-clause (iia) of section

SUBHASH ISHVARBHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

TDS withheld by the US Employer was denied to the assesee was on the ground that there was a delay in filing of form No.67 by the assessee, which was required to be filed by the assessee on or before the due date of filing of return of income. We are of the considered view, that the assessee has duly

ITO(E),VADODARA, RACE CIURSE VADODARA vs. TAKSHSHILA FOUNDATION(NGO), KARELIBAUGH, VADODARA

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member & Co No.8/Ahd/2024 (In Ita No.118/Ahd/2024 – By Assessee) Assessment Year : 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer (E) Takshshila Foundation (Ngo) (Ward) Vs B/15, Suhas Society Race Course Harni Road Vadodara 390 007 Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018 (Gujarat) Pan:Aaatt 5363 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent & Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Arises From The Order Of The Office Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A)–6, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 08-12-2023, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Against The Intimation/Order Passed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) By Cpc, Bengaluru & The Assessee Is In Cross Objection Thereof.

TDS of Rs. 7,444/-. 2.2. The CPC, Bengaluru disallowed the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act concluding that the assessee failed to e-file the Audit Report in form 10B one month prior to the due date of filing the return u/s.139(1) of the Act. The assessee filed rectification application u/s.154 of the Act against order/ intimation

SHRI CHIRAG P. PATNI,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4),, BARODA

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

Bench: This Tribunal & Before We Take Up The Grounds Raised By The Assessee, It Will Be Relevant To Recapitulate The Facts Of The Case.

TDS. 2. Holding that legal issues and reliance on judgments applicable to the facts of appellant case cannot be raised before him. Shri Chirag P.Patni vs. ITO Asst.Year 2005-06 3. Not granting the relief by ignoring the territorial tribunal judgment and other judgments squarely applicable to facts of appellant's case. 4. Not considering the submission of appellant That

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

135 taxmann.com 163 (Guj) where in was held as under: 16. The Revenue challenged the same before the Tribunal. It also relied on the decision of ITO v. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd.[2012] 25 taxmann.com 458 (Ahd. - Trib.). According to the ITAT, the material available on record, when looked at, the assessee though was not the legal owner

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

135 taxmann.com 163 (Guj) where in was held as under: 16. The Revenue challenged the same before the Tribunal. It also relied on the decision of ITO v. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd.[2012] 25 taxmann.com 458 (Ahd. - Trib.). According to the ITAT, the material available on record, when looked at, the assessee though was not the legal owner

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

135 taxmann.com 163 (Guj) where in was held as under: 16. The Revenue challenged the same before the Tribunal. It also relied on the decision of ITO v. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd.[2012] 25 taxmann.com 458 (Ahd. - Trib.). According to the ITAT, the material available on record, when looked at, the assessee though was not the legal owner

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

135 taxmann.com 163 (Guj) where in was held as under: 16. The Revenue challenged the same before the Tribunal. It also relied on the decision of ITO v. Electro Ferro Alloys Ltd.[2012] 25 taxmann.com 458 (Ahd. - Trib.). According to the ITAT, the material available on record, when looked at, the assessee though was not the legal owner

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GHCL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the view taken

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the view taken