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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS to the credit of the Central Government Account. Therefore, the impugned penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming in impugned penalty order in utter disregard to the legal position that penalty under Section 271C is leviable only in a case where there

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS to the credit of the Central Government Account. Therefore, the impugned penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming in impugned penalty order in utter disregard to the legal position that penalty under Section 271C is leviable only in a case where there

THY ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), , AHMEDABAD vs. M & B ENGINEERING LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

3) upto A. Y. 2011-12. by oil earlier assessing office/s Overseas agent to whom commission is paid is not having any business establishment or set up in India and his income is not at all liable to tax in India, has provisions of Section 195 is not applicable. From (he details of commission given including the furnishing

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

3. To adjudicate on this appeal, only a few material facts need to be taken of. The assessee before us is a resident company engaged in the business of trading in chemicals. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs 58,73,635 in respect of the commission

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

3. To adjudicate on this appeal, only a few material facts need to be taken of. The assessee before us is a resident company engaged in the business of trading in chemicals. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs 58,73,635 in respect of the commission

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INDO COLCHEM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of the order dated 28.02.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2012-13 with the following grounds: “1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of foreign

THE DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

TDS on this amount, and therefore, it is not entitled for ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 9 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. 12. Dissatisfied with the finding

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

TDS on this amount, and therefore, it is not entitled for ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 9 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. 12. Dissatisfied with the finding

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1`),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee; all are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

TDS on this amount, and therefore, it is not entitled for ITA No.2490/Ahd/2014 and 3 Others DCIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. 9 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. 12. Dissatisfied with the finding

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

TDS under section 195 read with section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 18. At the outset, we note that the issue raised is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA 539/Ahd/2018 which we have decided against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee vide Paragraph No. 14 of this order. Therefore respectfully following the same

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

TDS under section 195 read with section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 18. At the outset, we note that the issue raised is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA 539/Ahd/2018 which we have decided against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee vide Paragraph No. 14 of this order. Therefore respectfully following the same

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE.1(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.BURT HILL DESIGN PVT. LTD.(NOW STANTEC CONSULTING PVT. LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

195 and the cause of action for disallowance under section 40(a)(i). The impugned disallowance is thus deleted. 15. Ground No. 2 is thus allowed. 16. In ground no. 3, the assessee has raised the following grievance:- “3. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action

BURT HILL DESIGN PVT. LTD. ( NOW KNOWN AS STANTEC CONSULTING PVT. LTD. ),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

195 and the cause of action for disallowance under section 40(a)(i). The impugned disallowance is thus deleted. 15. Ground No. 2 is thus allowed. 16. In ground no. 3, the assessee has raised the following grievance:- “3. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action

DCIT, CIRCLE-2 (1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JAGSON COLORCHEM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.112/Ahd/2017 With Co No. 32/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Asstt. Years: 2013-14

195 of the Act. The AO accordingly invoked provision of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act and disallowed the commission expenses on the grounds of non-deduction of TDS as well. As a result, the assessee income was increased by AO to this extent. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) took note

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

SUMMIT (INDIA) WATER TREATMENT & SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

3. The provisions of section 172 are to apply, notwithstanding anything contained in other provisions of the Act, Therefore, ion such cases, the provisions of section 194C and 195 relating to tax deduction at source ore not applicable. The recovery of tax is to be regulated, for a voyage undertaken from any port in India by a ship under

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:-- ITA Nos. 1245 & 1246/Ahd/2019 (DCIT vs. Inox India Pvt. Ltd.) AY 2012-13 & 2016-17 - 14 - (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :-- "Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:-- ITA Nos. 1245 & 1246/Ahd/2019 (DCIT vs. Inox India Pvt. Ltd.) AY 2012-13 & 2016-17 - 14 - (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :-- "Section