XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. We have heard both the parties and also gone through the orders of the Revenue authorities and also various decisions cited before us. As noted above, the issue for adjudication is the levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act and default for which the penalty has been levied, is delayed remittance of TDS

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. We have heard both the parties and also gone through the orders of the Revenue authorities and also various decisions cited before us. As noted above, the issue for adjudication is the levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act and default for which the penalty has been levied, is delayed remittance of TDS

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. We have heard both the parties and also gone through the orders of the Revenue authorities and also various decisions cited before us. As noted above, the issue for adjudication is the levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act and default for which the penalty has been levied, is delayed remittance of TDS

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. We have heard both the parties and also gone through the orders of the Revenue authorities and also various decisions cited before us. As noted above, the issue for adjudication is the levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act and default for which the penalty has been levied, is delayed remittance of TDS

ARCHANABEN RAJENDRASINGH DEVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, as indicated\nabove

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1465/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nArchanaben Rajendrasingh\nDeval\nबनाम /\nv/s.\nThe Income Tax Officer\nTDS Ward-1,\nAhmedabad – 380 014\n42, Tirth Bhumi Co-op. Society\nNear Dhara Soap Factory\nNikol Gam Road,\nNikol, Ahmedabad – 382 350\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AHZPD 2745 D\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nAssessee by :\nShri Jaimin Sha

14)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 194IA of the\nAct were clearly applicable and the assessee, having failed to deduct tax at\nsource, was rightly held to be in default under section 201(1) of the Act and\nliable for interest under section 201(1A) of the Act.\n9.\nWe have carefully considered the rival submissions

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. TARUN SANTRAMDAS VARMA, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kmble

TDS u/s 194IA of the Act. 9.1.6.Nature of Property and Section 2(14) Test: Certificates from GUDA and Revenue Talati

THE DY.DIT, (INTL. TAXN.)- 1,, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2398/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit (International Vodafone West Ltd. बनाम/ Taxation)-1 Vodafone House Ahmedabad Corporate Road V/S. Prahladnagar Off S.G. Highway Ahmedabad-380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacf 1190 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 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)-Gandhinagar (Ahmedabad) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 02/06/2014, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Dy.Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad (Ao) Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) The Dcit (Intl.Taxn.)-1 Vs. Vodafone West Ltd. Asst. Year : 2013-14

14 The Supreme Court held that payments made by resident Indian end- users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/ suppliers are not royalties and therefore not liable for TDS under section

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

14. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. 15. The learned AO has erred on the facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

ASHVINKUMAR NARANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, TDS-WARD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.722/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 43, Shankar Society Part-1 Tds Ward-1 V/S. Near Meerambica Road Ahmedabad – 380 014 Opp. Amikunj Bus Stand Naranpura Ahmedabad – 380 013 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aeipp 9274 R अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), 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”], Confirming The Demand Raised Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) By The Ito, Tds Ward 1, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], In Relation To A.Y. 2015–16. Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16

14)(iii) and not agricultural. Further, since the assessee’s share in both transactions exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs, section 194IA was held applicable. The AO computed the default and interest as under: Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 3 Property TDS