SUZLON GUJARAT WIND PARK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above\nterms

TDS credit of ₹1,11,297/-,\nwas not claimed in the original return filed under section 139(1) but was\nintroduced only in the revised return filed under section 139(5

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

139/- and additional depreciation of Rs. 3,69,848/ and added to the total income of the assessee. 36. Aggrieved assessee preferred an to appeal before the learned CIT-A who allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Tribunal in its own assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

139/- and additional depreciation of Rs. 3,69,848/ and added to the total income of the assessee. 36. Aggrieved assessee preferred an to appeal before the learned CIT-A who allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Tribunal in its own assessee

TORRENT ENERGY LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH TORRENT POWER LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Torrent Energy Limited The Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) (Now Merged With Torrent Power Ltd) Ahmedabad. Samanvay, 600, Tapovan Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Pan : Aacct 8570 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ar : Smt.Trupti Patel, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 139(5). However, it was submitted that this reliance is wholly misplaced in the present case, as the issue of admissibility had already been adjudicated in assessee’s favour by the CIT(A) and not disturbed by the Co-ordinate Bench. The limited mandate before the AO was to re-examine the claim on merits, not to reopen

GELOT AGRI EXPORTS,DEESA vs. ITO WD 1 PALANPUR, BANASKANTHA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

5 40(a)(ia) of the Act, whereas the tax auditor had reported disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He pointed out that the assessment order contained the details of violation of provision of TDS by the assessee, picked up by the AO from the tax audit report and consequently addition was made to the income

ITO, WARD-1, PALANPUR, PALANPUR vs. GELOT AGRI EXPORTS, PALANPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

5 40(a)(ia) of the Act, whereas the tax auditor had reported disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He pointed out that the assessment order contained the details of violation of provision of TDS by the assessee, picked up by the AO from the tax audit report and consequently addition was made to the income

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:-- ITA Nos. 1245 & 1246/Ahd/2019 (DCIT vs. Inox India Pvt. Ltd.) AY 2012-13 & 2016-17 - 14 - (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :-- "Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:-- ITA Nos. 1245 & 1246/Ahd/2019 (DCIT vs. Inox India Pvt. Ltd.) AY 2012-13 & 2016-17 - 14 - (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :-- "Section

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2970/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T., M/S Deloitee Haskins & Sells, Circle-1(2), Vs. 31-Nutan Bharat Society, Vadodara. Alkapuri, Baroda.

5,93,567/- 11,556/- 7,39,185/- NIL Grand Total 1,19,90,581/- 60,51,027/- 1,20,705/- 59,51,111/- 11.1 As per the AO the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s 194-I of the Act with respect to the Banquet charges at the rate of 10% whereas the assessee has deducted the TDS

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASHRITA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to section 153A, then the books of account or documents

TESTEC ASIA LIMITED,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.44/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Testec Asia Limited The Dy.Director Of Income Tax बनाम/ United Arab Emirates Circle, International Taxation V/S. P.O. Box No.16799, Dubai, Vadodara- 390 007 United Arab Emirates – 999999 (Or) Villa 11, Street 5, Medows 1, Emirates Hill, United Arab Emirates – Not Listed 999999 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aajct 4035 A (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Virat Bhavsar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 139(5) of the Act on 31.12.2022, claiming TDS credit of Rs.57,28,565/-. The CPC processed the revised

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1) NOW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nirma Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-380 009 Circle-3(1)(1), Pan : Aaacn 5350 K Ahmedabad-380009 अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 10.04.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Follows:-

139 or section 142 or section 148 or section 153A, as this case may be ; the assessee shall be liable to pay such tax together with interest payable under any provision of this 8 Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT AY : 2013-14 Act for any delay in furnishing the return", makes it clear that there is no difference between

VINUBHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 60/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2023-24 Vinubhai Vecharbhai Patel Deputy Director Of Income Tax बनाम/ 20, Signature Residency, Opp. Cpc-Through V/S. Suvarna Bungalows, 100 Ft Jurisdictional Assessing Road, Thaltej, Officer, Ahmedabad – 380059 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aatpp 8055 H (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jimi Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Garg, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

TDS credit. He, therefore, has submitted that the impugned disallowance may be ordered to be deleted. 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. Vinubhai Becharbhai Patel Vs.DCIT Asst. Year: 2023-24 4 6. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record. The relevant part of the provisions

DARSHIT GUNWANTBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Darshit Gunantbhai Shah Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) B/2/236, Madhuvrund Society Vs. Ahmedabad. Ghatlodia Ahmedabad 380 061. Pan : Awmps 9760 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 25.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2021– 22, Wherein The Disallowance Of Rs.4,67,802/- Made Under Section 43B Of The Act By The Was Confirmed.

TDS payments under section 43B, which had been debited in the profit and loss account but were reflected in Form 3CD under clause 26(B)(b) as not paid on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1). 3.2 The CPC adjustment summary recorded the following: Sl. Particulars Amount in Amount in Proposed No. ITR Form 3CD Adjustment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MS. JAGSON COLORCHEM LIMITED, PHASE -II GIDC ESTATE VATVA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

5 [on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139]…. [Emphasis supplied.] 8. It is evident from the above provision that disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) can be made only in the case where tax is deductible at source on the payment made outside India or payment to a non-resident in India

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

139(1) limit, the CPC was correct in denying the credit of FTC paid abroad. 5. Conclusion: Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the Appellant is DISMISSED. Subhash I Patel vs. ACIT Asst.Year 2020-21 - 4– 5. The assesee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Before us, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee

KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

5. Considered the rival submissions and materials placed on record. We observe that assessee has paid interest on late payment of TDS. We observe from various decisions relied upon by both the parties and we observe that Ld.CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of Ferro Alloys Corpn. (supra) in which the Hon'ble High Court has not discussed anything

RATHORE FREIGHT CARRIERS PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3296/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Rathore Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., Plot No.68, Rathore Chamber, Vs. Central Circle-3(1)(2), National Highway, Ahmedabad. Sector No.9/C, Gandhidham, Kitch-370201. Pan: Aabcr0134L

5 7. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee on one hand is incurring interest expenses and on the other hand it has advanced money amounting to Rs. 21 Lacs without charging any interest thereon. Therefore the AO worked out the proportionate amount of interest attributable to such interest-free loans and advances for Rs. 3.15 Lacs

SAFAL HOSPITALITY AND MAINTANANCE SERVICE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

139 is made the employer is entitled for deduction.” 5 I.T.A No. 76/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. Safal Hospitality and Maintainance Service vs. DCIT Now, coming to ESIC Act, wherein contribution is defined under section 2(4) of the ESIC ACT 1948 as the sum of money payable to the Corporation by the principal employer in respect