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

7).  In the given case, brands are owned by the Appellant, a legal entity and not by any division or unit. Further, brands are self-generated brands and not acquired by the Appellant and hence notional adjustment for charging of royalty is not permissible. ITA Nos. 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year

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

7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2

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

7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2

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

7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2

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

7 3001-4000 15,96,18,534 45,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 7001-10000 2

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

7 Whether to levy penalty u/s 272A(2) and 271C is at the “discretion” of AO; such discretion has to be exercised judiciously and accordingly, penalty u/s.272A(2) and 271C must be levied merely for technical or venial breach”. Whether penalty u/s.272A(2) and 271C of the Act should be levied or not is as the ”discretion of AO”. Depositing

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

7 Whether to levy penalty u/s 272A(2) and 271C is at the “discretion” of AO; such discretion has to be exercised judiciously and accordingly, penalty u/s.272A(2) and 271C must be levied merely for technical or venial breach”. Whether penalty u/s.272A(2) and 271C of the Act should be levied or not is as the ”discretion of AO”. Depositing

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

7 Whether to levy penalty u/s 272A(2) and 271C is at the “discretion” of AO; such discretion has to be exercised judiciously and accordingly, penalty u/s.272A(2) and 271C must be levied merely for technical or venial breach”. Whether penalty u/s.272A(2) and 271C of the Act should be levied or not is as the ”discretion of AO”. Depositing

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

7 Whether to levy penalty u/s 272A(2) and 271C is at the “discretion” of AO; such discretion has to be exercised judiciously and accordingly, penalty u/s.272A(2) and 271C must be levied merely for technical or venial breach”. Whether penalty u/s.272A(2) and 271C of the Act should be levied or not is as the ”discretion of AO”. Depositing

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?

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 and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in issuing a notice u/s 143(2

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

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 14A read with Rule 8D. He held that in the absence of any exempt income, the disallowance was ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 47 not sustainable in law, particularly in light of the binding precedents cited. The CIT(A) also noted that all the four investee companies were dormant, and no expenditure could be said to have been incurred

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

section 14A read with Rule 8D. He held that in the absence of any exempt income, the disallowance was ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 47 not sustainable in law, particularly in light of the binding precedents cited. The CIT(A) also noted that all the four investee companies were dormant, and no expenditure could be said to have been incurred

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 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 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

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) were applicable on the appellant and he should have deducted tax and in case of no deduction he should have obtained a no deduction certificate from the AO. And 3. Whether the commission paid was genuine and the services have been rendered. ITA No.370/Ahd/18 [ACIT vs. M & B Engineering Limited] A.Y. 2013-14 - 5 - 2.11. Regarding the first issue

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

7 3001-4000 15,96,18,53445,288 12.67% 94.40% 8 4001-5000 2,15,47,954 4,563 1.28% 95.68% 9 5001-7000 6,07,52,130 10,521 2.94% 98.62% 10 2

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

7 of 20 and observed that it could be seen from the Part (A) & (B) of the Memorandum of Association that the money lending business is nowhere specified in the main object and it is only mentioned in incidental and ancillary objects. Further, clause 6 of incidental or ancillary object is also not helping the appellant, as he is neither