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

37– assessee the sale and market division are the integral part of the manufacturing unit which cannot be separated on artificial basis. In the case of the assessee there are only two units located at Kalol and Baddi and while claiming tax benefits incomes and expenses incurred for Kalol units has been reduced from the total profits and deduction

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

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

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

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

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

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

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

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

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. Allowing the appeal of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) holding that no TDS has to be made under Section 194A on loan of Rs. 19,56,37

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. Allowing the appeal of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) holding that no TDS has to be made under Section 194A on loan of Rs. 19,56,37

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

37. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 38. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order which we have already ITA nos.939 & 1129/AHD/2019 With C.O.Nos. 167 & 181/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 22 adverted

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICLAS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

37. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 38. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order which we have already ITA nos.939 & 1129/AHD/2019 With C.O.Nos. 167 & 181/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 22 adverted

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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

2), Bangalore [2018] 97 taxmann.com 599 (Bangalore - Trib.) wherein it is held that :- II. Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Business expenditure Allowability of (Penal interest) Assessment year 2012-13 Disallowance of interest paid on delayed remittances of service tax was made by Assessing Officer being of view that expenditure was in nature of penalty

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

2), Bangalore [2018] 97 taxmann.com 599 (Bangalore - Trib.) wherein it is held that :- II. Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Business expenditure Allowability of (Penal interest) Assessment year 2012-13 Disallowance of interest paid on delayed remittances of service tax was made by Assessing Officer being of view that expenditure was in nature of penalty

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

2), Bangalore [2018] 97 taxmann.com 599 (Bangalore - Trib.) wherein it is held that :- II. Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Business expenditure Allowability of (Penal interest) Assessment year 2012-13 Disallowance of interest paid on delayed remittances of service tax was made by Assessing Officer being of view that expenditure was in nature of penalty

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

37 are not fulfilled by the assessee. (6) That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts by deleting addition of Rs. 1,18,89,628/- made by the AO as disallowance of deduction of Bad Debts by ignoring the fact that the condition of provisions of Section 36(2) are not satisfied in the assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

37 are not fulfilled by the assessee. (6) That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts by deleting addition of Rs. 1,18,89,628/- made by the AO as disallowance of deduction of Bad Debts by ignoring the fact that the condition of provisions of Section 36(2) are not satisfied in the assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

37 are not fulfilled by the assessee. (6) That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts by deleting addition of Rs. 1,18,89,628/- made by the AO as disallowance of deduction of Bad Debts by ignoring the fact that the condition of provisions of Section 36(2) are not satisfied in the assessee

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

37(1) of the Act. 9. Apart from that according to the Learned Assessing Officer since the assessee failed to deduct tax on the commission payment for non- resident foreign agents further show-cause dated 13.10.2016 was issued to him as to why commission on which TDS is not deducted should not be disallowed and added to the income

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

37 taxmann. com 227/60 SOT 154 (UR0)/[2015] 153 ITD 368 (Delhi - Trib.). In that decision, the judgments in KashyapVed Research Foundation v. CIT [2011] 131 ITD 370/12 taxmann.com286 (Cochin) and CIT v. Rajneesh Foundation [2006] ACIT Exemptions vs. Vyakti Vikas Kendra India Page 8 of 15 280 ITR 533/[2005] 148 Taxman 396 (Bom.) were relied upon

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

37,40,625/-. It was further contended that the money lending business was a substantial part of its business, the net interest income constitutes 30.67% of its profit for the year and total loans and advances are 69.71% of its total assets. Hence, exclusionary condition under clause (ii) of sec. 2(22)(e) are fully satisfied. 6. With regard