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

2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given." 8 7. Under sub-section (1) of Section 200 any person deducting tax at source would pay within the prescribed time the said sum to the credit of the Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 200 such person would file periodic statements of tax deducted

SPACE DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2023-24 Space Developers The Ito 501, Gurukrupa Avenue, Vs Ward-1(1)(3) Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ahmedabad Ambawadi Ahmedabad – 380 015 (Gujarat) Pan: Absfs 0313 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R

2. The Ld. Addl. CIT (A erred on facts and in law in confirming action of Ld. CPC holding that TDS credit needed to be restricted in view of provisions of Rule 37BA and section 199

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCTI , CIRCLE-3(1)(1) NOW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nirma Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-380 009 Circle-3(1)(1), Pan : Aaacn 5350 K Ahmedabad-380009 अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 10.04.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Follows:-

2 Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT AY : 2013-14 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee in the present appeal relates to refusal of grant of interest on refund of self-assessment tax in terms of provisions of Section 244A of the Act. The orders of the Revenue Authorities reveal that the same was consistently denied, both by the Assessing Officer

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

TDS u/s 195 nor the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is attracted. Regarding genuineness of commission-payment, we observe that the assessee has given sufficient documentary evidences to prove the services of Page 41 of 51 ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. agents and payment of commission. It is also observed that

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

TDS u/s 195 nor the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is attracted. Regarding genuineness of commission-payment, we observe that the assessee has given sufficient documentary evidences to prove the services of Page 41 of 51 ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. agents and payment of commission. It is also observed that

MIRANT NAVINBHAI PARIKH,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT ,CIRCLE INT.TAXA., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountnat Member & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given." 7. Under sub-section (1) of Section 200 any person deducting tax at source would pay within the prescribed time the said sum to the credit of the Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 200 such person would file periodic statements of tax deducted

NAM GROUP ASLALI,AHMEDABAD vs. AO, CPC, BANGALORE-PRESENT -THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical

TDS credit, despite the specific provisions under Section 199 read with Rule 37BA(2) of the Act allowing the credit

NAM GROUP ASLALI,AHMEDABAD vs. AO,CPC, BANGALORE- PRESENT ITO. WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical

TDS credit, despite the specific provisions under Section 199 read with Rule 37BA(2) of the Act allowing the credit

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

TDS. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the foregoing discussion we find that the discount offered by the assessee to its parties has been disallowed on account of 2 reasons. Firstly, these parties own their own go-down in Mumbai and therefore there was no occasion/reason

JIVANBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,UNJHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

TDS had been made wrongly in the PAN of the assessee and the credit thereof ought not have been claimed by the assessee in the return. Para 5.5 (iii) and (iv) categorically mentioned by the CIT(A) as follows: “iii) As per the provisions of Section 199 of the Act and Rule 37BA(2

DHARTI FOUNDATION,SABARKANTHA vs. THE DY.DIT, CPC PRESENT JURIS. THE ITO, EXEMPTION, PALANPUR

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2250/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2022-2023 Dharti Foundation, The Deputy Director Of बनामVs. B/H Kheti Bank, Income Tax, Cpc Chhapariya Char Rasta, Present Jurisdiction, Himatnagar-383001, The Income Tax Officer, Sabarkantha. (Exemption), Palanpur.

TDS credit claimed in the return is duly reflected in Form 26AS. As per the provisions of Section 199(2

SHRI JITENDRA P. SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,50,100/-, brought forward from earlier assessment year i.e. assessment year 2015-16 was not granted to the assessee. The reason for non-grant of TDS was that the payer/deductor had deducted the above TDS on the basis of “accrual system” when the professional services were rendered by the assessee in assessment year 2015-16, while the assessee

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated any benefit derived from its associated enterprises namely Lambda

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated any benefit derived from its associated enterprises namely Lambda

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated any benefit derived from its associated enterprises namely Lambda

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated any benefit derived from its associated enterprises namely Lambda

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated any benefit derived from its associated enterprises namely Lambda

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated any benefit derived from its associated enterprises namely Lambda