RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observed that the Calcutta High Court in the case of Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd. reported in 56 taxmann.com 415 has held that profits and gains from scraps resulting in manufacturing process were eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC. Again, the Gujarat High Court in the case

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

14,810/- inclusive of interest u/s 244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

14,810/- inclusive of interest u/s 244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

14,810/- inclusive of interest u/s 244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

14,810/- inclusive of interest u/s 244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

TDS u/s 40(a)(ii) of the Act? 5. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making disallowance of Rs. 17,790/- for penalty expenses? 6. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2)(g) of the Act - for not filing quarterly statements of TDS in Form No.24Q and 26Q for the impugned year within the stipulated time in relation to the TDS which was not deposited in time by the assessee. 11. Since both the penalties arise on account of the act of delay in deposit of TDS by the assessee

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2)(g) of the Act - for not filing quarterly statements of TDS in Form No.24Q and 26Q for the impugned year within the stipulated time in relation to the TDS which was not deposited in time by the assessee. 11. Since both the penalties arise on account of the act of delay in deposit of TDS by the assessee

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2)(g) of the Act - for not filing quarterly statements of TDS in Form No.24Q and 26Q for the impugned year within the stipulated time in relation to the TDS which was not deposited in time by the assessee. 11. Since both the penalties arise on account of the act of delay in deposit of TDS by the assessee

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2)(g) of the Act - for not filing quarterly statements of TDS in Form No.24Q and 26Q for the impugned year within the stipulated time in relation to the TDS which was not deposited in time by the assessee. 11. Since both the penalties arise on account of the act of delay in deposit of TDS by the assessee

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

2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 961 or not. Therefore, in this view of the matter, law does not expect the payer company to deduct TDS when payment is made to a non-shareholder. This is the reason the law expressly provides for TDS requirement only when payment is made to a shareholder. Thus, section 194 requires TDS

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

2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 961 or not. Therefore, in this view of the matter, law does not expect the payer company to deduct TDS when payment is made to a non-shareholder. This is the reason the law expressly provides for TDS requirement only when payment is made to a shareholder. Thus, section 194 requires TDS

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. MARKET CREATORS LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

2 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; (id) units or any other such instrument issued to the investors under any mutual fund scheme; (ie) any certificate or instrument (by whatever name called), issued to an investor by any issuer being a special purpose distinct entity which possesses any debt or receivable

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

14. We also find that the issue travelled up to the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court was seized with the following substantial question of law:- “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and facts of the case to delete the disallowance of claim on account of retention money

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

14. We also find that the issue travelled up to the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court was seized with the following substantial question of law:- “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and facts of the case to delete the disallowance of claim on account of retention money

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

14. We also find that the issue travelled up to the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court was seized with the following substantial question of law:- “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and facts of the case to delete the disallowance of claim on account of retention money

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the asssessee is partly allowed

14. We also find that the issue travelled up to the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court was seized with the following substantial question of law:- “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and facts of the case to delete the disallowance of claim on account of retention money

DHANLAXMI CREDIT CO. OP. SOCIETY LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, PATAN

In the result, Ground Number 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case is also not possible to accept

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

2)(b) read with section 9(1)(i) of Income Tax Act. 2.16. Regarding the issue of obtaining no deduction certificate under section 195 it is seen that for the applicability of the provisions of this section, the sum must be chargeable under the provisions of the income tax Act. Section 195 provides for deduction of tax by the person