THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 195 requires TDS only if the commission income is chargeable to tax in India but it is not so and therefore TDS is not required. Ld. AR further argued that there are numerous decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujrat where it has been held that the commission income of foreign agents, who render services outside India

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

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

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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

182/- is, therefore, directed to be deleted. Grounds No. 3 and 4: General Allegation of Non-Consideration of Submissions and Challenge to Penalty Initiation 26. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee relates to a general allegation that the lower authorities failed to properly consider the facts and submissions made during the course of proceedings. Ground No. 4 challenges

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

182/- is, therefore, directed to be deleted. Grounds No. 3 and 4: General Allegation of Non-Consideration of Submissions and Challenge to Penalty Initiation 26. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee relates to a general allegation that the lower authorities failed to properly consider the facts and submissions made during the course of proceedings. Ground No. 4 challenges

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INT-TAXA-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid and directions

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 9(1)(vi) r.w.s. 195 of the act. The added TDS of Rs. 1,56,598 on the payment of Rs 15,65,984 should be deleted. 2. The Learned D.C.I.T, Intl. Tax, Ahmedabad has erred in charging interest u/s 201 and 201(1)(A) of the income tax act, 1961 on the payment made to International boards without

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INT-TAXA-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the aforesaid and directions

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 9(1)(vi) r.w.s. 195 of the act. The added TDS of Rs. 1,56,598 on the payment of Rs 15,65,984 should be deleted. 2. The Learned D.C.I.T, Intl. Tax, Ahmedabad has erred in charging interest u/s 201 and 201(1)(A) of the income tax act, 1961 on the payment made to International boards without

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

182,700 1,118,500 4,301,200 Z 5,284,200 525,000 5,809,200 347-13 2,