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

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

TDS [2025] 173 taxmann.com 722 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)/[2025] 212 ITD 414 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) dated 02.04.2025, it was held that where payments to individual sellers were below the threshold limit, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee-in-default under section 201(1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 271C of the Act are applicable only when there is failure on part of assessee to deduct Tax as required under provisions of Chapter XVII

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 271C of the Act are applicable only when there is failure on part of assessee to deduct Tax as required under provisions of Chapter XVII

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 271C of the Act are applicable only when there is failure on part of assessee to deduct Tax as required under provisions of Chapter XVII

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 271C of the Act are applicable only when there is failure on part of assessee to deduct Tax as required under provisions of Chapter XVII

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

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

173 Relevant extracts from bank statement of the lender are attached vide paper book Page No. 174 – 182 4 lrfan M Firdos 1,11,00,000 A statement giving explanation on Kothi source of loan is attached herewith vide Paper Book Page no.202 Confirmation of account is attached vide Paper Book Page 184 Copy of ITR of Lender is attached

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

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

173 Relevant extracts from bank statement of the lender are attached vide paper book Page No. 174 – 182 4 lrfan M Firdos 1,11,00,000 A statement giving explanation on Kothi source of loan is attached herewith vide Paper Book Page no.202 Confirmation of account is attached vide Paper Book Page 184 Copy of ITR of Lender is attached

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

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

173 Relevant extracts from bank statement of the lender are attached vide paper book Page No. 174 – 182 4 lrfan M Firdos 1,11,00,000 A statement giving explanation on Kothi source of loan is attached herewith vide Paper Book Page no.202 Confirmation of account is attached vide Paper Book Page 184 Copy of ITR of Lender is attached

SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,WARD-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

section 69C is not warranted. There is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 8. As regards the assessee’s appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that merely because return of income is not filed within the time limit prescribed u/s. 139(1) that