M/S. GANESH ENTERPRISE.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2308/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 M/S Ganesh Enterprise, Addl.C.I.T., 205, Shubh House, Vs. Tds, 77, Swastik Soc. Opp. C.G. Road, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

205, Shubh House, Vs. TDS, 77, Swastik Soc. Opp. C.G. Road, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. PAN: AAKFG8477D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jimit Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03/06/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 23/06/2021 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been

A P SHAH & CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT, DIRECTOR OF IT, CPC , BANGLORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 A.P. Shah & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cpc 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore. High Court Way Ashram Road Gujarat. Pan : Aadfa 1884 B

TDS given by Rs.8,79,205/-.Against the said intimation rectification application under section 154 of the Act dated 14.8.2020 was filed

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

205/- (38,47,968/-+6,78,168/-+11,62,069/-) was made in respect of international transaction of grant of loan and consequent non-charging of interest at ALP. The addition as made by the Assessing Officer/TPO was partly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 4.2 Shri Bandish Soparkar, ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the average

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

205/- (38,47,968/-+6,78,168/-+11,62,069/-) was made in respect of international transaction of grant of loan and consequent non-charging of interest at ALP. The addition as made by the Assessing Officer/TPO was partly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 4.2 Shri Bandish Soparkar, ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the average

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

M/S. JUGALKISHORE R. AGRAWAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,DEESA vs. THE JT. CIT, B.K.RANGE,, PALANPUR

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

section 133(6) of the Act was " 89, 78, 907/- only. The assessee submitted that TDS was deducted on the total amount of " 96,31,203/- and payment was made through cheque. Further the creditor had claimed TDS credit of the entire amount during the year under consideration. However, the AO held that the assessee has not been able

BUDHIMAN ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), relating to the Assessment Years 2013- 14 & 2015-16. 2. As the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, they were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience. We shall take ITA No.1513/Ahd/2025

BUDHIMAN ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), relating to the Assessment Years 2013- 14 & 2015-16. 2. As the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, they were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience. We shall take ITA No.1513/Ahd/2025

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

205 (Mad) had dealt with an identical issue and held that both the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii) are independent provisions and deduction under both these clauses has to be made independently without reducing the total income by deduction under clause (viii) of section 36(1) of the Act. Our attention was drawn to para

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

205 (Mad) had dealt with an identical issue and held that both the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii) are independent provisions and deduction under both these clauses has to be made independently without reducing the total income by deduction under clause (viii) of section 36(1) of the Act. Our attention was drawn to para