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 liable, but the AO found that despite being responsible for deducting tax on the total amount, the Assessee failed to do so. The Assessee did not offer any satisfactory explanation for this non-compliance. Accordingly, Ld. Assessing Officer held that given the clear requirements under Sections 194J and 194C of the Act, and the Assessee’s inability to demonstrate

M/S. ASTA INDIA PVT LTD.,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, Ground No. 6 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2298/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

145A of the Act where the action of the assessee is found to be tax neutral. With these remarks, the entire issue is set aside to the file of the AO for consideration afresh in terms of observations noted hereinabove and in accordance with law. It shall be open to the assessee to make all representations and submissions concerning

STERLING ABRASIVES LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the department in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 704 & 705/Ahd/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष" Dy. Commissioner Of Income Sterling Abrasives Ltd. Tax, Vs 45/46, Gidc, Circle-8, Odhav Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 382 415 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 334/Ahd/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष" Sterling Abrasives Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 45/46, Gidc, Vs Tax, Odhav Road, Circle-8, Ahmedabad – 382 415 Ahmedabad अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr.D.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/10/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/11/2017 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Mahavir Prasad:- These Three Appeals, Two By The Revenue & One By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad Dated 04/12/2013 (Revenue) & Cit(A)-10, Ahmedabad Dated 19/12/2014 For Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Revenue Has Taken Following Grounds In Its Appeal Vide Ita No.704/Ahd/2014 For Asst. Year 2009-10:

TDS deducted on said payments being made. It is settled legal principle that burden of proving that a particular expenditure has been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business is on the assessee.” Therefore, disallowance of commission at Rs.80,738/- was made against the assessee. Addition u/s 68 of the Act During the course

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. STERLING ABRASIVES LTD,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the department in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 704 & 705/Ahd/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष" Dy. Commissioner Of Income Sterling Abrasives Ltd. Tax, Vs 45/46, Gidc, Circle-8, Odhav Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 382 415 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 334/Ahd/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष" Sterling Abrasives Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 45/46, Gidc, Vs Tax, Odhav Road, Circle-8, Ahmedabad – 382 415 Ahmedabad अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr.D.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/10/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/11/2017 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Mahavir Prasad:- These Three Appeals, Two By The Revenue & One By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Ahmedabad Dated 04/12/2013 (Revenue) & Cit(A)-10, Ahmedabad Dated 19/12/2014 For Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Revenue Has Taken Following Grounds In Its Appeal Vide Ita No.704/Ahd/2014 For Asst. Year 2009-10:

TDS deducted on said payments being made. It is settled legal principle that burden of proving that a particular expenditure has been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business is on the assessee.” Therefore, disallowance of commission at Rs.80,738/- was made against the assessee. Addition u/s 68 of the Act During the course

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS under section 195 read with section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 18. At the outset, we note that the issue raised is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA 539/Ahd/2018 which we have decided against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee vide Paragraph No. 14 of this order. Therefore respectfully following the same

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS under section 195 read with section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 18. At the outset, we note that the issue raised is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA 539/Ahd/2018 which we have decided against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee vide Paragraph No. 14 of this order. Therefore respectfully following the same

PIYUSHKUMAR P PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

TDS of Rs. 2,16,750/- on delayed interest on compensation towards land acquisition by Sardar Sarovar Nigam Ltd. the interest of Rs. 22,45,995/- was not included in the return nor he had applied for spread over of interest over years. Hence, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 22,45,995/- on account of interest on enhanced

THE DCITANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING CO.LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

145A of the Act mandate inclusive method of accounting for the purpose of the Act in respect of duty, cess and taxes payable by the assessee, even though the assessee might be following exclusive method of accounting. On verification of case records, it was Page 3 of 25 ITA nos.1385/AHD/2013 and others Asstt. Years 2006-07 and others 4 further

THE DCITANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING CO.LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Roysr.No.

145A of the Act mandate inclusive method of accounting for the purpose of the Act in respect of duty, cess and taxes payable by the assessee, even though the assessee might be following exclusive method of accounting. On verification of case records, it was Page 3 of 25 ITA nos.1385/AHD/2013 and others Asstt. Years 2006-07 and others 4 further

NAVINBHAI MANILAL PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 145A dealing with method of accounting has been amended with effect from assessment year 2010-11 to provide that the interest received by an assessee on compensation of enhanced compensation shall be deemed to be his income for the year in which it is received irrespective of the method of accounting followed by the assessee. In Smt. Rama

THE DCIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. VOLTAMP TRANSFORMERS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

TDS to the Book profit computed U/s.115JB of the Act. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the materials on record are as under:- In this case, assessee’s company is engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Transformers. From the records it was observed that the assessee had shown the Capital WIP at Rs.3,53,22,706/-. Then

SARANADHAR UMASHANKAR GUPTA,PALANPUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, PALANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, and why their gross profit should not be estimated at 20.97% (as in the previous year, Assessment Year 2016-17). In reply, the assessee submitted the assessee hired local villagers for supervision of machinery such as tractors, trolleys, and JCBs used in road construction and maintenance. The assessee submitted that these workers

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need