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

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 has been deposited prior to the due date of filing of return, then no disallowance has to be made. The ld.CIT(A) has rightly deled the disallowance, and we do not find any error in this ground of appeal. It is rejected. ITA No.692 /Ahd/2011 and 7 Others ACIT Vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals 26 25. In the result

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 has been deposited prior to the due date of filing of return, then no disallowance has to be made. The ld.CIT(A) has rightly deled the disallowance, and we do not find any error in this ground of appeal. It is rejected. ITA No.692 /Ahd/2011 and 7 Others ACIT Vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals 26 25. In the result

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 has been deposited prior to the due date of filing of return, then no disallowance has to be made. The ld.CIT(A) has rightly deled the disallowance, and we do not find any error in this ground of appeal. It is rejected. ITA No.692 /Ahd/2011 and 7 Others ACIT Vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals 26 25. In the result

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 has been deposited prior to the due date of filing of return, then no disallowance has to be made. The ld.CIT(A) has rightly deled the disallowance, and we do not find any error in this ground of appeal. It is rejected. ITA No.692 /Ahd/2011 and 7 Others ACIT Vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals 26 25. In the result

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 has been deposited prior to the due date of filing of return, then no disallowance has to be made. The ld.CIT(A) has rightly deled the disallowance, and we do not find any error in this ground of appeal. It is rejected. ITA No.692 /Ahd/2011 and 7 Others ACIT Vs. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals 26 25. In the result

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

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

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

TDS provisions to commission paid to overseas/non-resident agents by Indian Exporters. In view of the preceding discussion, it is clear that the appellant was not liable to deduct tax on the commission paid foreign agents. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 1, 89,56,768/- for AY 2010- 11 and Rs. 1,07,23,167/- for A Y 2011-12 under

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

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

TDS provisions to commission paid to overseas/non-resident agents by Indian Exporters. In view of the preceding discussion, it is clear that the appellant was not liable to deduct tax on the commission paid foreign agents. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 1, 89,56,768/- for AY 2010- 11 and Rs. 1,07,23,167/- for A Y 2011-12 under

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

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

TDS provisions to commission paid to overseas/non-resident agents by Indian Exporters. In view of the preceding discussion, it is clear that the appellant was not liable to deduct tax on the commission paid foreign agents. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 1, 89,56,768/- for AY 2010- 11 and Rs. 1,07,23,167/- for A Y 2011-12 under

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

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

TDS provisions to commission paid to overseas/non-resident agents by Indian Exporters. In view of the preceding discussion, it is clear that the appellant was not liable to deduct tax on the commission paid foreign agents. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 1, 89,56,768/- for AY 2010- 11 and Rs. 1,07,23,167/- for A Y 2011-12 under

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

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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

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 ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), 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 DY.CIT.,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