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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

194-I, 194J and 192B and defaulted in ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

194-I, 194J and 192B and defaulted in ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

194-I, 194J and 192B and defaulted in ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P. INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee had given inter-corporate deposit to six subsidiaries companies namely Dhanlaxmi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Dhwani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Rich Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Palitana Sugars Mills Pvt. Ltd. for business purposes. The lender company was closely held company

THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P.INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee had given inter-corporate deposit to six subsidiaries companies namely Dhanlaxmi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Dhwani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Rich Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Palitana Sugars Mills Pvt. Ltd. for business purposes. The lender company was closely held company

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. TARUN SANTRAMDAS VARMA, AHMEDABAD

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

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

194-IA(2) applies with reference to each transferee, not the aggregate amount in the sale deed. The Ahmedabad ITAT in "Bhikhabhai Hirabhai Patel v. DCIT (TDS)", the Jodhpur ITAT in "Dalpat Singh Nanecha v. ITO (TDS)* and Central TDS reiterated that the threshold of Rs. 50 lakh applies individually per buyer "M/s Oxcia Enterprises Pvt Ltd v. DCIT seller

PRIMA AUTOMATION (INDIA) PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TDS-CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS u/s 194 of the Act as the dividend includes deemed dividend. The Ld. CIT (A) also confirmed the order of the AO. 7.1 However on perusal of the assessment order of Shri Vinod V Patel passed by the AO under section 143(3

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), , AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD.(ON BEHALF OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2021/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ (On Behalf Of Amalgamating Cricle-1(3), Vs. 1St Floor, B-109, Company, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. 801-804, 8Th Floor, Abhishree Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Ahmedabad-380015 Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9421H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

3 of the Revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 9,16,306/-. The Ld. AO has discussed the issues at Paras 7 to 7.12 on pages 23 to 43 and Ld. CIT(A) has discussed in Paras

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2021/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ (On Behalf Of Amalgamating Cricle-1(3), Vs. 1St Floor, B-109, Company, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. 801-804, 8Th Floor, Abhishree Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Ahmedabad-380015 Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9421H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

3 of the Revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 9,16,306/-. The Ld. AO has discussed the issues at Paras 7 to 7.12 on pages 23 to 43 and Ld. CIT(A) has discussed in Paras

HYDCO ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,CHHATRAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

V. Logistics Services of Rs.99,000/- and to Prajapati Carriage Services of Rs.2,30,400/- totalling to Rs.3,29,400/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act for non compliance of provisions of section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.4 The AO observed that as per the provisions of section 194

ASHVINKUMAR NARANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, TDS-WARD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.722/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 43, Shankar Society Part-1 Tds Ward-1 V/S. Near Meerambica Road Ahmedabad – 380 014 Opp. Amikunj Bus Stand Naranpura Ahmedabad – 380 013 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aeipp 9274 R अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Confirming The Demand Raised Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) By The Ito, Tds Ward 1, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], In Relation To A.Y. 2015–16. Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16

TDS, along with consequential interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO without independent verification or analysis of key factual and legal aspects and summarily dismissed the appeal. 9.1. During the course of hearing before us, the AR of the assessee confined his arguments to the issue that the provisions

G. B. BUILDERS, ,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT-CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Due Date On 24-11-2014, But Inadvertently Committed An Error Therein Of Depositing This Tds Using Pan Of The Seller Instead Of Pan Of The Appellant (As The Buyer)

3 of section 200 of the Act. In section 200A which deals with processing of the Statements prescribed the specific provision for levy of fee under section 234E was inserted w. e. f. 1.6. 2015. The main grievance of the appellant is that though section 234E came into effect w.e.f. 1.6. 2012 but since the enabling provision for computation

BHIKHABHAI HIRABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 04 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

V. Agrawal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Umesh Kumar Agarwal, Sr. Respondent by : D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of 30/01/2020 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of 31/01/2020 Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner

ASIAN MILLS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1,,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1397/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T., 104, Sakar Iii, Vs. Range-1, Opp. Old High Court, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1531/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T., Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 104, Sakar Iii, Ahmedabad. Opp. Old High Court, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G

194-I of the Act. 16. On the other hand the learned AR before us submitted that the discount given to the parties were incurred in the regular course of business and the same was not subject to the provisions of TDS. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

TDS credit claimed Rs.2,400/- under Rs.2,400/- under section 194-IA section 194-IA 9 Refund granted or Denied – ITR filed Denied – ITR filed denied late late 3.5 Subsequently, the PCIT, examined the assessment record under section 263 of the Act and found that the assessment order dated 06.03.2023 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

TDS credit claimed Rs.2,400/- under Rs.2,400/- under section 194-IA section 194-IA 9 Refund granted or Denied – ITR filed Denied – ITR filed denied late late 3.5 Subsequently, the PCIT, examined the assessment record under section 263 of the Act and found that the assessment order dated 06.03.2023 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

194-I to the parties concerned. Further, the Assessee during the reassessment proceedings has filed confirmation of accounts, ITRs of the unsecured creditors with bank statements, ledger accounts, etc. However, the lower authorities have not accepted the unsecured loans, holding the same as not genuine, thereby making addition of the unsecured loans as well as the interest thereon

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

194-I to the parties concerned. Further, the Assessee during the reassessment proceedings has filed confirmation of accounts, ITRs of the unsecured creditors with bank statements, ledger accounts, etc. However, the lower authorities have not accepted the unsecured loans, holding the same as not genuine, thereby making addition of the unsecured loans as well as the interest thereon