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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 273B of the I.T. Act and therefore the impugned penalty is bad in law. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order may please be cancelled. 7. On the facts of the case as well as in law, learned CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the impugned penalty order without appreciating the fact that the demand notice

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 273B of the I.T. Act and therefore the impugned penalty is bad in law. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order may please be cancelled. 7. On the facts of the case as well as in law, learned CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the impugned penalty order without appreciating the fact that the demand notice

AAKASH PURSHOTTAMBHAI VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, TDS-1, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 194IA of the Act was required to be Aakash Pursottambhai Vaghela vs. ITO Page 6 of 10 made where consideration for transfer of an immovable property was less than Rs.50 Lakhs. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bhikhabhai Hirabhai Patel vs. DCIT (155 taxmann.com

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHATHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

TDS, TCS. Advance Tax or Self- Assessment Tax paid u/s 140A. 4. Proviso to Sec. 244A(1) as relied upon is not applicable to the facts of the case, which is in fact governed by the provisions of Sec. 244A(1)(h), being in any other case. The amount of Rs. 75,04,960/-as determined to be refundable

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

section 133(6) was duly complied with where Seema Holding confirmed the investment made in assessee share capital which was further confirmed by furnishing the notarized affidavit. From the submission of the assessee, we also find that the investor company for the year under consideration has shown interest income of Rs. 86,89,155/- on which TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEENDAYAL PORT AUTHORITY , GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.150/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18

155(14) of the Income tax Act, 1961.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was initially assessed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 28/12/2019, determining an assessed income of Rs.9,15,21,29,220. Subsequently, the CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad, invoked section 263 of the Act and set aside the order passed

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

TDS u/s 40(a)(ii) of the Act? 5. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 17,790/- for penalty expenses? 6. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition

HASMUKHBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 194-IA(2) of the Act and, thus, assessee was not required to deduct TDS where consideration paid to each transferor was less than Rs.50 lakhs. 11. In the case of Bhikhabhai Hirabhai Patel vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 155

EYLEX FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 68 of the Act. Consequently, the loan was treated as unexplained cash credit, leading to the addition of ₹48,75,427/- to the income of the assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee claimed expenses amounting to ₹10,62,20,155/-, excluding depreciation and film distribution expenses. However, the assessee failed to submit detailed information for verification

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JB of the Act. 6.2. In this connection Co-ordinate Bench of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of DCIT -Vs- Subex Technology Ltd. reported (2015) 63 taxmann.com 124 held as follows: “… 4. The question is whether credit u/s.90 of the IT Act, would be given on tax liability under MAT provisions of the Act. We find that

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JB of the Act. 6.2. In this connection Co-ordinate Bench of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of DCIT -Vs- Subex Technology Ltd. reported (2015) 63 taxmann.com 124 held as follows: “… 4. The question is whether credit u/s.90 of the IT Act, would be given on tax liability under MAT provisions of the Act. We find that

M/S. SKAPS INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,(INTE. TAXN)-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for both the assessment years

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS officer levied interest under Section 201(1A) for the failure to withhold tax on the payments. 4. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid order before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) held that the payments received by Teems Electric (TEC) were business receipts and that, since TEC had a permanent establishment (PE) in India, the income from those

M/S. SKAPS INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,(INNT. TAXN)-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for both the assessment years

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS officer levied interest under Section 201(1A) for the failure to withhold tax on the payments. 4. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid order before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) held that the payments received by Teems Electric (TEC) were business receipts and that, since TEC had a permanent establishment (PE) in India, the income from those

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material for unabated years

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material for unabated years

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material for unabated years

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. The additional ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 challenges the validity of assessments framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act, in the absence of incriminating material for unabated years