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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed by the survey team that the assessee had defaulted in deposit of TDS amounting

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed by the survey team that the assessee had defaulted in deposit of TDS amounting

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed by the survey team that the assessee had defaulted in deposit of TDS amounting

ASHVINKUMAR NARANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, TDS-WARD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.722/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 43, Shankar Society Part-1 Tds Ward-1 V/S. Near Meerambica Road Ahmedabad – 380 014 Opp. Amikunj Bus Stand Naranpura Ahmedabad – 380 013 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aeipp 9274 R अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Confirming The Demand Raised Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) By The Ito, Tds Ward 1, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], In Relation To A.Y. 2015–16. Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16

3. The AO issued notices dated 11.12.2018 and 26.08.2019, proposing to invoke section 201(1)/201(1A) for failure to deduct tax at source under section 194IA. The assessee, in reply dated 01.01.2019, submitted that both lands were agricultural lands and not subject to TDS

AAKASH PURSHOTTAMBHAI VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, TDS-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act and total tax liability of Rs.3,19,728/- was worked out as under: - S.No. Name of the Nature of Date of Amount of TDS to be Delay in Interest u/s concern/individual payment/section payment payment deducted months 201(1A) @ involved 1% 1 Vikram P Purchase of property 30.01.2018 4025000 40250 61 24553 Mahurkar

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

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 201(1A) is the consequential order of making addition holding the inter- corporate deposit to the tune of Rs. 19,56,37,008/- is deemed dividend and 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

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 201(1A) is the consequential order of making addition holding the inter- corporate deposit to the tune of Rs. 19,56,37,008/- is deemed dividend and TDS

THE ACIT (INT. TAXA), VADODARA vs. M/S. ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS was issued after four years from the end of relevant assessment year, thus, the order under Section 201 / 201(1A) is time barred. Section 201(3

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,00,00,000/- and Rs. 2,35,00,000/-. However, the assessee failed to deduct and deposit TDS as per the provisions of Section 194-IA of the Act at the rate of 1% of purchase consideration. Accordingly, in the course of proceedings under Section 201

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

3,00,00,000/- and Rs. 2,35,00,000/-. However, the assessee failed to deduct and deposit TDS as per the provisions of Section 194-IA of the Act at the rate of 1% of purchase consideration. Accordingly, in the course of proceedings under Section 201

ARCHANABEN RAJENDRASINGH DEVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, as indicated\nabove

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1465/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nArchanaben Rajendrasingh\nDeval\nबनाम /\nv/s.\nThe Income Tax Officer\nTDS Ward-1,\nAhmedabad – 380 014\n42, Tirth Bhumi Co-op. Society\nNear Dhara Soap Factory\nNikol Gam Road,\nNikol, Ahmedabad – 382 350\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AHZPD 2745 D\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nAssessee by :\nShri Jaimin Sha

TDS, along with consequential interest under section 201(1A) of the Act.\nITA No.1465/Ahd/2024\nArchanaben Rajendrasingh Deval\nAsst. Year: 2015-16\n9\nThe Ld.CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO without independent\nverification or analysis of key factual and legal aspects and summarily\ndismissed the appeal.\n9. 1. During the course of hearing before

STATE BANK OF INDIA BHAVNAGAR PARA BRANCH,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO TDS WARD 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a branch of State Bank of India which had provided Leave Fare Concession (LFC) to its employees and had treated the same as exempt under section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act ("the Act") while computing TDS under section 192 of the Act. During the course

STATE BANK OF INDIA BHAVNAGAR PARA BRANCH,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO TDS WARD 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a branch of State Bank of India which had provided Leave Fare Concession (LFC) to its employees and had treated the same as exempt under section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act ("the Act") while computing TDS under section 192 of the Act. During the course

M/S. BARODA AGRO CHEMICALS LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

TDS return under section 200A of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.2509 to 2513/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Page 2 of 6 3. These appeals are time barred by 29 days. The assessee has moved condonation petition. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative on the same. We are of the considered view that the explanation given by the assessee was reasonable

M/S. BARODA AGRO CHEMICALS LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

TDS return under section 200A of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.2509 to 2513/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Page 2 of 6 3. These appeals are time barred by 29 days. The assessee has moved condonation petition. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative on the same. We are of the considered view that the explanation given by the assessee was reasonable

M/S. RAVI PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

TDS return under section 200A of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.2504 to 2508/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Page 2 of 6 3. These appeals are time barred by 70 days. The assessee has moved condonation petition. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative on the same. We are of the considered view that the explanation given by the assessee was reasonable

M/S. RAVI PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

TDS return under section 200A of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.2504 to 2508/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Page 2 of 6 3. These appeals are time barred by 70 days. The assessee has moved condonation petition. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative on the same. We are of the considered view that the explanation given by the assessee was reasonable

M/S. BARODA AGRO CHEMICALS LTD.,,HALOL vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all these 5 appeals are allowed

TDS return under section 200A of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.2509 to 2513/Ahd/2016 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Page 2 of 6 3. These appeals are time barred by 29 days. The assessee has moved condonation petition. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative on the same. We are of the considered view that the explanation given by the assessee was reasonable