PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

TDS, and late payment of taxes aggregating to Rs.\n34,56,637/-, which were directly related to specific assets or statutory\nliabilities and had no nexus with earning exempt income. The CIT(A)\naccepted this contention and directed that such interest should be excluded\nfrom the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). On re-computation, the interest\ndisallowance under Rule

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

TDS, and late payment of taxes aggregating to Rs.\n34,56,637/-, which were directly related to specific assets or statutory\nliabilities and had no nexus with earning exempt income. The CIT(A)\naccepted this contention and directed that such interest should be excluded\nfrom the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). On re-computation, the interest\ndisallowance under Rule

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

197 (Delhi), ITA No. 4405(Del)/2009 order dated 24.12.2010: "4.2. The second ground is that the position should be seen as a whole with respect to all the transactions and not only with respect to the disputed transactions. In other words, if transfer pricing study is made for all the transactions, the variation made by the AO would

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

197 (Delhi), ITA No. 4405(Del)/2009 order dated 24.12.2010: "4.2. The second ground is that the position should be seen as a whole with respect to all the transactions and not only with respect to the disputed transactions. In other words, if transfer pricing study is made for all the transactions, the variation made by the AO would

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

ROTOMAG MOTORS & CONTROLS (P) LTD.,ANAND vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

Appeal is allowed

1)(i) of the Act, and therefore the assessee was obliged to deduct tax at\nsource u/s.195. Since no TDS was deducted, the AO invoked section 40(a)(i)\nand disallowed Rs.1,42,197

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, (INTL.TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS u/s 195 of IT Act, 1961 on payment made to Cliantha Research Mexico, Mexica for technical services during F.Y. 2012-13. The order of the A.O. is upheld. As a result, this ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 9. Both the Department and the assessee are in appeal against the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) before

ACIT, (INT. TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD vs. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS u/s 195 of IT Act, 1961 on payment made to Cliantha Research Mexico, Mexica for technical services during F.Y. 2012-13. The order of the A.O. is upheld. As a result, this ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 9. Both the Department and the assessee are in appeal against the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) before

JYOTI LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. DCIT,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS @ 20%, DTAA would override the provision of this particular domestic Act since the provision of DTAA are more beneficial to the assessee.In this regard we have considered the Article 12 of DTAA which prescribes such rate of tax to be deducted @ 10%. 7. We have considered the Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows:- “(1

SHRI SANDEEP JAGDISHCHANDRA DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. TEH PR. CIT -3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

197 for NIL or lower rate of TDS) it is seen that the sum was neither produce before the Assessing Officer nor was the same produced before Ld. PCIT during the course of Sandip Jagdishchandra Dave vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2014-15 - 5– 263 proceedings. The Ld. PCIT has made a specific noting that even though the issue of TDS were

BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid addition be deleted 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and m law the Ld. AO under the directions of Hon’ble DRP erred in disallowing devaluation of inventory amounting to Rs. 1,40,79,555. While making this addition the Ld. AO erred in law and on facts

HAGGLUNDS DRIVES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ( NOW MERGED IN BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) LTD.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid addition be deleted 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and m law the Ld. AO under the directions of Hon’ble DRP erred in disallowing devaluation of inventory amounting to Rs. 1,40,79,555. While making this addition the Ld. AO erred in law and on facts

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

197/-(-) Rs. 6,96,88,570/- already offered by the assessee) is required to be made to the income of the assessee company on account of guarantee fee to be charged from the associate enterprises in addition to the amount already charged as guarantee fee by the assessee. (Upward adjustment of Rs. 10,45,32,835/-) 7. When the Assessing

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

197/-(-) Rs. 6,96,88,570/- already offered by the assessee) is required to be made to the income of the assessee company on account of guarantee fee to be charged from the associate enterprises in addition to the amount already charged as guarantee fee by the assessee. (Upward adjustment of Rs. 10,45,32,835/-) 7. When the Assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJESHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

197 DTR 121, decided on 17th of November, 2020, ITA No. 1074/Ahd/2023 [ITO vs. Rajeshkumar Rameshchandra Shah] A.Y. 2017-18 - 9 – in which, the issue was with regard to cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee, which the assessee had stated out of the sale proceeds and the Assessing Officer had framed the assessment by making the addition

TARPAWANKUMAR RAMPRASAD SANDHIR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

section 114 of the Evidence Act. (b) CIT v Krishnaveni Ammal (1986) 158 ITR 826,829,830 (Mad.) wherein it has been stated that the law of evidence mandates that if the best evidence is not placed before the court an adverse inference can be drawn as against the person who ought to have produced it. Tarpawankumar Ramprasad Sandhir

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

TDS of Rs. 16,897/- credited from city union bank and Prism Cement, thus the corresponding income of Rs. 1,68,970 also remain unexplained and escaped assessment. Therefore, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 5 4.3 However

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in rejecting books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in partly confirming the addition of bogus purchases made by Ld. AO without providing information/ document/ material

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in rejecting books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in partly confirming the addition of bogus purchases made by Ld. AO without providing information/ document/ material