THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P. INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS under Section 194 of the Act. The four directors of the appellant company namely Mr. Pvaveen T. Kotak, Mr. Jayesh T. Kotak, Mr. Jatin M. Gupta & Mr. Amit M. Gupta are the common and beneficial shareholder in the assessee company as well as subsidiary companies. The case of the Revenue is this that the payment by way of loans

THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P.INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS under Section 194 of the Act. The four directors of the appellant company namely Mr. Pvaveen T. Kotak, Mr. Jayesh T. Kotak, Mr. Jatin M. Gupta & Mr. Amit M. Gupta are the common and beneficial shareholder in the assessee company as well as subsidiary companies. The case of the Revenue is this that the payment by way of loans

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

TDS made by the Assessee. Therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Act is not sustainable in law. Further the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (cited supra) it was held as follows: Section 68, read with section 143, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit [Loans] -Assessment

FORTUNE BARODA NETWORK PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS on the payments made by it.” 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. counsel by referring the section 153

INCOME TAX OFFICERS (TDS),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RANG INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2266/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

153 shall, so far as may, apply to the time limit prescribed in sub-section (3)." 12.3 Subsequently, section 201(3)(ii) of the Act came to be amended by Finance Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 1/4/2010 whereby in sub-section (3) in clause (ii) words "four years" came to be substituted by words "six years". Amended section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Us.

TDS on this amount, and therefore, it is not entitled for deduction under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Similar action was taken with regard to commission paid at Rs.1,51,52,353/- in the Asstt.Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 1550/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 12 ACIT vs. M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 12. Dissatisfied with the finding

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

TDS on this amount, and therefore, it is not entitled for ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 9 deduction under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Similar action was taken with regard to commission paid at Rs.1,51,52,353/- in the Asstt.Year 2013-14. 12. Dissatisfied with the finding

THE DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

TDS on this amount, and therefore, it is not entitled for ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 9 deduction under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Similar action was taken with regard to commission paid at Rs.1,51,52,353/- in the Asstt.Year 2013-14. 12. Dissatisfied with the finding

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1`),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

TDS on this amount, and therefore, it is not entitled for ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 9 deduction under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Similar action was taken with regard to commission paid at Rs.1,51,52,353/- in the Asstt.Year 2013-14. 12. Dissatisfied with the finding

M/S. KOSA CONSTRUCTION,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, VADODARA

In the result, all the grounds appeal of the assessee are allowed

153, referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

TDS of Rs. 16,897/- credited from city union bank and Prism Cement, thus the corresponding income of Rs. 1,68,970 also remain unexplained and escaped assessment. Therefore, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 5 4.3 However

RALSONS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS credit for which it was not entitled. In view of the above, the Ld. PCIT concluded that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of Revenue by observing as under: “9. After having considered the position of law and facts and circumstances

VIJAYBHAI DASHRATHBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us: -

153 I.T.A No. 2622/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No. 10 Vijaybhai Dashrathbhai Patel vs. ACIT a return of his income which he is required to furnish u/s. 139……” Thus, for initiation of explanation- 3 to section 271(1)(c), the Revenue has to establish that there was no reasonable cause for failure to furnish return of income by the assessee

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

153 and the order under Section 153D of the Act was passed. Therefore, in assessee’s case, no incriminating material was found and whether the appeal in respect of the order under Section 153D of the Act has been filed or not becomes immaterial. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the order under challenge before the CIT(A) as well

M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT., MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

153 and the order under Section 153D of the Act was passed. Therefore, in assessee’s case, no incriminating material was found and whether the appeal in respect of the order under Section 153D of the Act has been filed or not becomes immaterial. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the order under challenge before the CIT(A) as well

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

153(4) of the Act, thereby making the TP Order barred by limitation and invalid in law. 2. That the learned AO/TPO/Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP") has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 8,54,24,075/ on account of Corporate Guarantee Charges 3. That the learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred in law and on facts