ARCHANABEN RAJENDRASINGH DEVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, as indicated\nabove

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1465/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nArchanaben Rajendrasingh\nDeval\nबनाम /\nv/s.\nThe Income Tax Officer\nTDS Ward-1,\nAhmedabad – 380 014\n42, Tirth Bhumi Co-op. Society\nNear Dhara Soap Factory\nNikol Gam Road,\nNikol, Ahmedabad – 382 350\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AHZPD 2745 D\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nAssessee by :\nShri Jaimin Sha

TDS provisions of section 1941A is not\napplicable, which ground is not considered by the CIT(A) and therefore the order\npassed by CIT(A) is against the provision of law and therefore the addition made\nu/s 201(1)/201(1A) require to be deleted.\n4. That the assesse has purchase agriculture land along with her co-owner for\nRs.1

SUZLON GUJARAT WIND PARK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above\nterms

TDS claim of ₹1,47,029/- made in the revised return, and\nnot to the entire refund amount of ₹10,93,89,770/-, which also included TDS/TCS\ncredits of ₹10,92,42,741/- already claimed in the original return filed under\nsection 139(1). Hence, the interest on the latter component of the refund ought\nto have been computed under

AKSHATAM CONSTRUCTION LLP,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1559/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Akshatam Construction Llp, D.C.I.T., 302, Silver Coin, Vs. Circle-1(2), Shrenik Park Char Rasta, Vadodara. Nr. Akota Statdium, Vadodara-390020. Pan: Aaxfa6302N

section 194C of the Act. But the assessee has not deducted the TDS on such expenses. Therefore the AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of the assessee. 14. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A who confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: 7.1 I have considered the written submission

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT (OSD), TDS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed) [Through Virtual Court]

TDS Officer treating the Appellant as an 'assessee in default' under section 201 r.w.s. 194H of the Act without ascertaining and proving that whether the recipient had paid taxes on the alleged income received / receivable from the Appellant as required u/s. 191

S B DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2023-24

Section 191 of the Act and also as Assessment Year: 2023-24 S B Developers vs. ITO Page 3 of 3 per Rule 37BA. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to consider the receipts for the last two years and, after verifying the same, the assessee be given credit of TDS

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

AARVEE DENIMS & EXPORTS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.396/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd. The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 191, Shahwadi Ahmedabad-1 V/S. Narol–Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad – 382 405 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 6019 P (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

191, Shahwadi Ahmedabad-1 v/s. Narol–Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad – 382 405 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AABCA 6019 P (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Divyakant Parikh, AR Revenue by : Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 27/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR

UTKRANTI SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2018-19 Utkranti Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, A/46, 3Rd Floor, ‘Nobles’, Opp. Nehru Vs Ward 4(1)(4), Bridge, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aabcu 1620 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hemanshu Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2022

191/-. The said return was processed by the CPC, Bangalore; and, in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) on 27.12.2019, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.30,31,250/- after making certain additions. 3. Against the intimation/order passed under Section

CHIRAG MAHENDRABHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Section 234B and 234C of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has passed an order dated 28.09.2016 confirming the same addition made in the intimation and reject the rectification petition filed by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against this rectification order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Ahmedabad. The short issue in this case

AARVEE DENIMS & EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2012-13 Aarvee Denims & Exports Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) 191, Shahwadi, Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Old Octroi Naka Narol-Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aabca 6019 P Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Aarvee Denims & Exports Ahmedabad. Vs Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aabca 6019 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against Order Dated 30.3.2016 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)-1/Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1)/738/2014-15 Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. We Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

191, Shahwadi, Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Old Octroi Naka Narol-Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad 382 405. PAN : AABCA 6019 P Assessment Year : 2012-13 DCIT, Cir.1(1)(1) Aarvee Denims & Exports Ahmedabad. Vs Ahmedabad 382 405. PAN : AABCA 6019 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee by : Shri D.K. Parikh, AR Revenue by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AARVEE DENIMS & EXPORTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2012-13 Aarvee Denims & Exports Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) 191, Shahwadi, Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Old Octroi Naka Narol-Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aabca 6019 P Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Aarvee Denims & Exports Ahmedabad. Vs Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aabca 6019 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against Order Dated 30.3.2016 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)-1/Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1)/738/2014-15 Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. We Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

191, Shahwadi, Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Old Octroi Naka Narol-Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad 382 405. PAN : AABCA 6019 P Assessment Year : 2012-13 DCIT, Cir.1(1)(1) Aarvee Denims & Exports Ahmedabad. Vs Ahmedabad 382 405. PAN : AABCA 6019 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee by : Shri D.K. Parikh, AR Revenue by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,,WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KANAK CASTOR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedasst.Year : 2008-09

TDS which are placed on pages 45 to 109 and 706 to 710 of the paper book. 8.3 The learned AR also drew our attention on the details of freight inward expenses, freight outward expenses, loading and unloading expenses, stores and spares expenses and packing expenses which are placed on record in the paper book. 8.4 The learned AR with

ARVINDKUMAR AMULKH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3), AHMEADABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

191 3,44,69,278 153A in Rs. Since the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal in part, the Revenue is in appeal(s) before us, and the assessee filed two appeals and Cross Objections. Following are the grounds: 3. Grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeals are as under: (a) In IT(SS)A No.2/Ahd/2021

SAKARIYA METAL ROLLING MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 34/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2015-2016 Sakariya Metal Rolling Mills, I.T.O., 257, Gujrat Vapraj Mahamandal, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Vasahat, S.P. Ring Road, Ahmedabad. Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415. Pan: Aadfs3443A

191/- belong to the moth of April 2014 i.e. for the year under consideration which was added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT(A) who provided part relief to the assessee by observing as under: 2.5 On careful consideration of entire facts it is observed that Annexure - A being

GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 3049 & 3050/Ahd/2010 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Years: (1998-1999 & 1999 & 2000) Gujarat Industries Power Company The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, P.O Petrochemicals, Circle-1(1), Baroda-391346. Baroda.

section 148, which came to be issued thereafter. When the amount of taxable income and of the tax payable thereon were not ascertained at all by the Assessing Officer in respect of the transfer made by the assessee in favour of the firm on September 19, 1990, there obviously was no opinion formed in that regard and, consequently, there would

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GHCL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the view taken

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the view taken

THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE INFRASTRUCTURE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Shree Infrastructure, Ward 3(3)(6), Vs 104, Sarthak Complex, Next To Ahmedabad Fun Republic Cinema, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Pan : Abtfs 9550 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr Dr Assessee By : Shri P.M. Patel, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 16.03.2016 Whereby He Deleted The Additions Of Rs.1,58,36,330/- & Rs.60,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Disallowance On Account Of Cash Payments Towards Land Development Agreement Respectively.

Section 143(3) of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) challenging both the additions made by the Assessing Officer to its total income. During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), various details and documents were furnished by the assessee to support and substantiate its claim on both

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KGN INDUSTRIES LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal field by the Revenue is allowed

TDS of Rs. 1,16,814/- was deducted. However the assessee has not offered this income and not even filed the Return of Income for the relevant Assessment Year 2010-11. Therefore the case was reopened by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 29.11.2013 which was duly served on the assessee. However the assessee did not file