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

Section 2(22)(e) and the appellant is required to deduct TDS under Section 194 of the Act. The four

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

22,72,726/- as per schedule 6 of investments to the balance sheet as on 31st March, 2008. These facts demonstrate that assessee was having enough interest free own fund and there was no unsecured loan reflected in the balance sheet of the company. Therefore, we are not inclined with the decision of the Id. CIT(A) to make disallowance

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

22,72,726/- as per schedule 6 of investments to the balance sheet as on 31st March, 2008. These facts demonstrate that assessee was having enough interest free own fund and there was no unsecured loan reflected in the balance sheet of the company. Therefore, we are not inclined with the decision of the Id. CIT(A) to make disallowance

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMIT INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2259/Ahd/2016 With C.O.No.162/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2007-2008 D.C.I.T., M/S. Amit Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1(3), Vs. Iscon House, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Nr. Citi Bank, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

2(22)(e) show that there are three limbs of the said section i.e. (i) the payment by a company by way of advance or loan should have been made to a shareholder who is a beneficial owner of the shares and substantial interest. (ii) or the payment should be made to any concern in which such share holder

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1009/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Mohan B. Agrawal, D.C.I.T., 4Th Floor, Shoppers Plaza-Ii, Vs. Circle-4(2), Opp. B.S.N.L Telephone Exchange, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaopa4030C

section 2(22)(e) are applicable to the amount of Rs. 1,71,13,533/-. In view of above, the addition of Rs. 1,71,13,533/- made by AO u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act is hereby confirmed. The concerned grounds of appeal are dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assesse

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DHWANI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeal filed by revenue and cross objection filed by assessee are dismissed

2(22)(e) show that there are three limbs of the said section i.e. (i) the payment by a company by way of advance or loan should have been made to a shareholder who is a beneficial owner of the shares and substantial interest. (ii) or the payment should be made to any concern in which such share holder

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

22[year] from the time prescribed for delivering or causing to be delivered such statement. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

22[year] from the time prescribed for delivering or causing to be delivered such statement. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

22[year] from the time prescribed for delivering or causing to be delivered such statement. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

22[year] from the time prescribed for delivering or causing to be delivered such statement. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source

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

22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot

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

22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot

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

22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot

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

22,815/- was also brought to tax by invoking the provision of section 2(24)(iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot

SHRI DILIP GOVINDLAL SHAH,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly dismissed

TDS-2 Krishna Industrial Estate, Baroda Opp. BIDC Gorwa, Baroda PAN : AAFCM 2738 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.H. Talati, AR Revenue by : Shri N.P. Patel, Sr DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 08/09/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 06/10/2017 आदेश/O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These

MONACHEM ADDITIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,TDS-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly dismissed

TDS-2 Krishna Industrial Estate, Baroda Opp. BIDC Gorwa, Baroda PAN : AAFCM 2738 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.H. Talati, AR Revenue by : Shri N.P. Patel, Sr DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 08/09/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 06/10/2017 आदेश/O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These

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)

TDS provisions. 7. In parity with view taken in Co-ordinate Bench, we hold that assessee company was not liable for deduction of tax u/s. 194H or 194J on payment of brokerage to the sub-brokers and accordingly we hold that no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) was called for. Thus, this ground of Revenue is dismissed

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS in assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06. In both the years, CIT(A)-XXl, Ahmedabad by order dated 28-09-2010 held that transactions entered into by the appellant which its associate concern would not attract the provisions of section 2(22