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

6. Thereafter, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the learned CIT(A) who granted relief to the assessee on the ground that after considering the judicial decisions relied by the assessee and in view of provisions of Section 195 of the Act and in view of insertion of Explanation 2 below the 195(1) of the Act with retrospective effect

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

6. Thereafter, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the learned CIT(A) who granted relief to the assessee on the ground that after considering the judicial decisions relied by the assessee and in view of provisions of Section 195 of the Act and in view of insertion of Explanation 2 below the 195(1) of the Act with retrospective effect

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2014-15 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd. Ahmedabad. ‘Apollo House’ Rashmi Society Nr.Mithakhali Six Roads Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacg 7248 P

TDS as per section 195(6) of the Act relating to various parties. One among this is Mr.Binod Shah, Form

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

Bench: Us.

section 195 of the IT Act. 5. In view of the above, it is submitted that the commission agent did not carry on any activity in India In the absence of any activity being carried in India by a non-resident commission agent, the commission does not accrue or arise in India. Therefore, such payments are not taxable in India

THE DY.CIT (INT.-TAXA.)-1, , AHMEDABAD vs. ZYDUS LIFSCIENCE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

195 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the deduction and raised the demand of Rs. 3,46,277,17.00 only towards the TDS and interest respectively under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. 15. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) after considering the assessment order, and submission

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

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

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

195 nor section 40(a)(i) were attracted in the circumstance. Ld. CIT(A) also observed that the assessee paid commission to 6 agents, out of which 5 were old agents to whom commission was paid in earlier years as well and only 1 agent was new. Ld. CIT(A) perused various documents filed by the assessee and recorded

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

195 nor section 40(a)(i) were attracted in the circumstance. Ld. CIT(A) also observed that the assessee paid commission to 6 agents, out of which 5 were old agents to whom commission was paid in earlier years as well and only 1 agent was new. Ld. CIT(A) perused various documents filed by the assessee and recorded

THE DY.DIT, (INTL. TAXN.)- 1,, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2398/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit (International Vodafone West Ltd. बनाम/ Taxation)-1 Vodafone House Ahmedabad Corporate Road V/S. Prahladnagar Off S.G. Highway Ahmedabad-380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacf 1190 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-Gandhinagar (Ahmedabad) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 02/06/2014, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Dy.Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad (Ao) Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) The Dcit (Intl.Taxn.)-1 Vs. Vodafone West Ltd. Asst. Year : 2013-14

195 of the Income Tax Act were not liable to deduct any TDS on these payments. 8.6. Thus, the decisions of the Ld.CIT(A) are upheld. Therefore, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Since the grounds related to applicability of section 195A, 201(1A) and penalty proceedings u/s 271C are consequential are also dismissed

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

6 (Original) and Revised Ground No. 11 – Deletion of Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii) amounting to Rs. 11,29,21,996/- 79. The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.11,29,21,996/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had made substantial additions to capital work-in-progress (CWIP

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

6 (Original) and Revised Ground No. 11 – Deletion of Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii) amounting to Rs. 11,29,21,996/- 79. The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.11,29,21,996/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had made substantial additions to capital work-in-progress (CWIP

INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, (INT. TAXA.), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

6. Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT-A erred in holding that that the assessee was under the obligation to deduct TDS under section 195

ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1817/Ahd/2016 2012-13 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Arvind Mills Premises, Ahmedabad. Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan No. Aaach7252A 2. 2056/Ahd/2016 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Arvind Lifestyle Circle-1(1)(2), Brands Ltd., Ahmedabad. 3. 2377/Ahd/2017 2013-14 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad. 4. 2618/Ahd/2017 2014-15 Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ito Ward-1(1)(3) Ltd., Ahmedabad

6. Commission (Sales CFA) 710176 7. Commission Export 1940561 8. Commission Others 9342553 9. Service Infra 1179474 10. RCM Others 9513556 ITA nos.1817/Ahd/2017 and 3 others Asstt. Years 2012-13 8 11 Prof & Consultancy 2840169 TOTAL 34094223 14.1 It was contended by the assessee that it is following mercantile system of accounting as prescribed under section

THE JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ELECTROTHERM (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS form such payment vvili attract section 195 of the Act and consequent disallowance under section 40ia)(i) will be sustained This ground is thus disposed off accordingly. 34. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.1193/Ahd/2019 & 1284/Ahd/2019 Electrotherm (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT & JCIT(OSD) vs. Electrotherm (India

ELECTROTHERM (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS form such payment vvili attract section 195 of the Act and consequent disallowance under section 40ia)(i) will be sustained This ground is thus disposed off accordingly. 34. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.1193/Ahd/2019 & 1284/Ahd/2019 Electrotherm (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT & JCIT(OSD) vs. Electrotherm (India