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

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

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

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

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

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of 'education ' or 'medical relief'. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

15% of Rs.326,34,37,682/-. 8.2 Aggrieved by the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, relying on the order of his predecessor on this issue for AY 2011-12, allowed the claim of deduction of the assessee. 8.3 Aggrieved by the relief given

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

15% of Rs.326,34,37,682/-. 8.2 Aggrieved by the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, relying on the order of his predecessor on this issue for AY 2011-12, allowed the claim of deduction of the assessee. 8.3 Aggrieved by the relief given

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

CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

15. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present case relates to the disallowances of the expenses claimed by the assessee for Rs. 17,55,000/- on account of non-availability of supporting documents. Therefore the AO made the disallowance which was subsequently confirmed

ITO(EXEMPTIONS),, AHMEDABAD vs. CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

15. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present case relates to the disallowances of the expenses claimed by the assessee for Rs. 17,55,000/- on account of non-availability of supporting documents. Therefore the AO made the disallowance which was subsequently confirmed

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

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)

15. A bare perusal of the shove Explanation clearly shows that if the commission or brokerage has been paid by a person acting on behalf of another person for services rendered in connection with securities then the said commission or brokerage is outside the purview of section 194/7. Clause (h) of sub-section (2) of the Securities Contract Act reads

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

15. Deletion of the order passed under Section 201(1) and interest charged under Section 201(1A) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 4,39,00,943/- and Rs. 3,64,37,782/- respectively for A.Y. 2007-08 has been challenged before us. 16. The order passed under Section 201 and interest charged under Section

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

15. Deletion of the order passed under Section 201(1) and interest charged under Section 201(1A) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 4,39,00,943/- and Rs. 3,64,37,782/- respectively for A.Y. 2007-08 has been challenged before us. 16. The order passed under Section 201 and interest charged under Section

GUJARAT STATE PLASTIC MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DDIT(E),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

TDS was also deducted. The objects and activity of the assessee has to seen in the light of the provisions of Section 2(15

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) of section 5 of the Act. Similarly, we further note that the income was received by the foreign agents on account of services rendered by them in their respective countries. Therefore, we conclude that such income has not accrued or arisen in India and consequential not chargeable to tax in India. ITA No.370/Ahd/18 [ACIT vs. M & B Engineering Limited

MOHAN BHAGWATPRASAD AGRAWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrio. P. Meena & Mrs. Madumita Roy

TDS @ 10% 194A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) wherein it was held that where assessee received loan from two companies which was substantially involved in money lending business, tribunal rightly concluded that