THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

153 ITD 368 (Delhi - Trib.). In that decision, the judgments in KashyapVed Research Foundation v. CIT [2011] 131 ITD 370/12 taxmann.com286 (Cochin) and CIT v. Rajneesh Foundation [2006] 280 ITR 533/[2005] 148 Taxman 396 (Bom.) were relied upon. It was held that yoga was one of the six systems of Vedic philosophy developed by Maharishi Patanjali, who was characterized

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

153 ITD 368 (Delhi - Trib.). In that decision, the judgments in KashyapVed Research Foundation v. CIT [2011] 131 ITD 370/12 taxmann.com286 (Cochin) and CIT v. Rajneesh Foundation [2006] 280 ITR 533/[2005] 148 Taxman 396 (Bom.) were relied upon. It was held that yoga was one of the six systems of Vedic philosophy developed by Maharishi Patanjali, who was characterized

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

153 ITD 368 (Delhi - Trib.). In that decision, the judgments in KashyapVed Research Foundation v. CIT [2011] 131 ITD 370/12 taxmann.com286 (Cochin) and CIT v. Rajneesh Foundation [2006] 280 ITR 533/[2005] 148 Taxman 396 (Bom.) were relied upon. It was held that yoga was one of the six systems of Vedic philosophy developed by Maharishi Patanjali, who was characterized

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

2(22)(e) and the appellant is required to deduct 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

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

2(22)(e) and the appellant is required to deduct 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

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

153 of the IT. Act, the Assessment Order, passed in pursuance to the Order of the Hon'ble ITAT u/s. 254 of the IT. Act, was required to be passed by 31/12/2018, being the expiry of nine months from the end of FY 2017-18 during which the Appellate Order of the ITAT was received. 2. That without prejudice

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

153 ITD 368 (Delhi - Trib.). In that decision, the judgments in KashyapVed Research Foundation v. CIT [2011] 131 ITD 370/12 taxmann.com286 (Cochin) and CIT v. Rajneesh Foundation [2006] ACIT Exemptions vs. Vyakti Vikas Kendra India Page 8 of 15 280 ITR 533/[2005] 148 Taxman 396 (Bom.) were relied upon. It was held that yoga

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,000 may be charged to depreciation in each year over the next five years. There are several methods used to calculate depreciation. The full value of costs that are not capital expenditures must be deducted in the year they are incurred. 46 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,000 may be charged to depreciation in each year over the next five years. There are several methods used to calculate depreciation. The full value of costs that are not capital expenditures must be deducted in the year they are incurred. 46 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,000 may be charged to depreciation in each year over the next five years. There are several methods used to calculate depreciation. The full value of costs that are not capital expenditures must be deducted in the year they are incurred. 46 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

TDS by invoking Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act considering same as "fees for technical services" ignoring fact that said testing were done out of India and payee does not have any permanent establishment in India and it is not fees for technical services. Tax Effect: Rs. 85,250/- Your appellant craves leave to add, amend

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

2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee at the relevant time was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of agro processing, maize processing, cotton spinning as well as generating powers through windmills. On verification of TDS details, and CA certificate for foreign remittances it revealed to the AO that the assessee has debited foreign commission

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

2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee at the relevant time was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of agro processing, maize processing, cotton spinning as well as generating powers through windmills. On verification of TDS details, and CA certificate for foreign remittances it revealed to the AO that the assessee has debited foreign commission

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

2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee at the relevant time was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of agro processing, maize processing, cotton spinning as well as generating powers through windmills. On verification of TDS details, and CA certificate for foreign remittances it revealed to the AO that the assessee has debited foreign commission

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

Bench: Us.

2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee at the relevant time was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of agro processing, maize processing, cotton spinning as well as generating powers through windmills. On verification of TDS details, and CA certificate for foreign remittances it revealed to the AO that the assessee has debited foreign commission

VISHNUBHAI MAFATBHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2849/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

TDS On Transfer Of (418470) (418470) Immovable Property Tax Refundable (41640) (1761) c. In view of the above arguments, the appellant therefore request your honor that the appeal may please be allowed on the merits of the case". 2.3. I have given careful consideration to the appellant's written submission and also carefully gone through the assessment order. On perusal

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

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

2 is dismissed.” I.T.A Nos. 109,110, 153 & 154/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2011-12 Page No 6 Gujarat Apollo Industries vs. Jt. CIT Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench on the similar facts as supra , we do not find any reason to interfere in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly this ground of appeal

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

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

2 is dismissed.” I.T.A Nos. 109,110, 153 & 154/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2011-12 Page No 6 Gujarat Apollo Industries vs. Jt. CIT Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench on the similar facts as supra , we do not find any reason to interfere in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly this ground of appeal

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

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

2 is dismissed.” I.T.A Nos. 109,110, 153 & 154/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2011-12 Page No 6 Gujarat Apollo Industries vs. Jt. CIT Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench on the similar facts as supra , we do not find any reason to interfere in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly this ground of appeal