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 to deduct TDS on such consideration on behalf of transferor/seller and thus, consequential late filing fees imposed on assessee was to be deleted. 12. In the case of Archanaben Rajendrasingh Deval vs. Income-tax Officer, TDS [2025] 173

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RAJENA AGRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 584/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 M/S. Rajena Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. D.C.I.T., C/O. Rangwala & Co., Vs. Patan Circle, 305, Sakar-1, Patan. Opp. Nehru Bridge, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

173/- on account of non-deduction of TDS. 4. The assessee in the year under consideration has incurred certain expenses without deducting the TDS under the respective provisions of the Act. The relevant details of the expenses stand as under: Sr. No. Name of payment Amount(Rs.) 1. Export Commission 1,75,283/- 2. Export Transport

RAJENA AGRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,,PATAN vs. THE DY.CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 584/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 M/S. Rajena Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. D.C.I.T., C/O. Rangwala & Co., Vs. Patan Circle, 305, Sakar-1, Patan. Opp. Nehru Bridge, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

173/- on account of non-deduction of TDS. 4. The assessee in the year under consideration has incurred certain expenses without deducting the TDS under the respective provisions of the Act. The relevant details of the expenses stand as under: Sr. No. Name of payment Amount(Rs.) 1. Export Commission 1,75,283/- 2. Export Transport

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

TDS provisions, expenses incurred for earning exempt income, ICDS adjustments, and refund claims. Accordingly, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 29.06.2021 and 15.12.2021 respectively, and the assessee furnished its responses thereunder. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had earned exempt income amounting to Rs.8,28,12,464/- during

EXPRESS CARGO CARRIERS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

TDS default pertains to procedure, then the provisions of section 4(a)(ia) does not become applicable and the decisions of the same were also submitted. In the light of the above facts and submission, it is respectfully submitted that the addition made by the learned A.O. under section 40(a)(ia) totalling to Rs.1,28,93,652/- is required

PIRAMAL FINANCE PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

SECTION 35AC OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO Rs.2,36,08,173/- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of denying the deduction u/s 35AC of the Act on the alleged ground that the amount contributed to the eligible institution is spent for non-eligible

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

173 excess considered by AO) u/s. 271C of the Act on account of default on TDS payments. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that provisions of Section

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

173 excess considered by AO) u/s. 271C of the Act on account of default on TDS payments. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that provisions of Section

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

173 excess considered by AO) u/s. 271C of the Act on account of default on TDS payments. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that provisions of Section

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

173 excess considered by AO) u/s. 271C of the Act on account of default on TDS payments. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that provisions of Section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMIT INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2259/Ahd/2016 With C.O.No.162/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 D.C.I.T., M/S. Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1(3), Vs. Iscon House, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Nr. Citi Bank, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

173. Accordingly the AO made addition of Rs. 8,94,41,125/- under section 2(22)(e) of the Act to the total income of the assessee. 4.2 The assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT (A) who deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 2.6. I have carefully perused the assessment order

VEER PLASTICS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT -4, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

173 ITD 130 (Ahd); The Ld. AR submitted that "Inadequacy" of inquiry by Assessing Officer also cannot be ground for proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the followings decisions: " CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - 332 ITR 167 (Delhi); " CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma - 335 ITR 83 (Delhi); " CIT vs. Vikas Polymers

GUJARAT STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS is required to be deducted on payments made to such Boards. 4.1 For A.Y. 2014-15 and 2018-19, the Department accepted the assessee’s exempt status and passed orders accordingly. 4.2 For A.Y. 2016-17, reassessment proceedings were initiated u/s 147, based on information available in Form 26AS/AIR regarding interest income from Union Bank of India. The Assessing

GUJARAT STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS is required to be deducted on payments made to such Boards. 4.1 For A.Y. 2014-15 and 2018-19, the Department accepted the assessee’s exempt status and passed orders accordingly. 4.2 For A.Y. 2016-17, reassessment proceedings were initiated u/s 147, based on information available in Form 26AS/AIR regarding interest income from Union Bank of India. The Assessing

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

173/- which was the amount disallowed u/s 40a(ia). Thus, he held that, to the extent of the disallowed expenses, the profits of the eligible undertaking u/s 80IC increased and the assessee claimed enhanced deduction u/s 80IC. Accordingly, the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IC on the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) was disallowed. Aggrieved by this

RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

173/- which was the amount disallowed u/s 40a(ia). Thus, he held that, to the extent of the disallowed expenses, the profits of the eligible undertaking u/s 80IC increased and the assessee claimed enhanced deduction u/s 80IC. Accordingly, the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IC on the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) was disallowed. Aggrieved by this

SAFAL HOSPITALITY AND MAINTANANCE SERVICE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

173 SLP filled by the Revenue department before Supreme Court has been rejected/dismissed in (2017) 250 Taxman 16 (SC) (B)Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT(2014) 266 CTR 246/366 ITR 408 (Kar) (C) CIT v. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd (2017) 393 ITR 421 (D) Bihar State Warehousing Corporation

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

TDS certificate issued by the Executive Engineer. The assessee has raised RA bills, contractor & construction work bills for the activities undertaken by it at the part rate as agreed by in the tender and work contract & collected the payment for the same. g. The receipt of payment u/s.194C itself clearly indicates that the assessee company has acted as a contractor