ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MS. JAGSON COLORCHEM LIMITED, PHASE -II GIDC ESTATE VATVA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

TDS was made thereon. However, the AO did not agree with the submissions of the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the commission of Rs.5,63,28,206/- under the provision of section

SHRI MELDI MAA T.B. HOSPITAL TRUST,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

TDS CPC has charged late filing fee of Rs. 19,500/- for quarter-1 of assessment year 2015-16 u/s. 234E of the act. 5. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) stating that as per the law stood prior to first June, 2015, there was no enabling provision therein for raising a demand in respect of levy

M/S. ORION STEEL CORPORATION,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,CPC-TDS, GHAZIYABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2432/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15(26Q, Q1)) M/S. Orion Steel Corporation The Acit बनाम/ Centralized Processing 58, Ajanta Station Road, Vs. Cell-Tax Deducted At Anand, Gujarat-388001 Source, Income Tax Office, Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziyabad, Uttar Pradesh-201010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaafo3831D .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

TDS statement in Form No. 26Q for A.Y. 2014-15 (Quarter-1) which was processed under Section 200A on 24.03.2014 charging late fees under Section 234E at Rs. 48,600/-. Against the order passed under Section 200A r.w.s. 154 by CPC Ghaziabad, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Vadodara. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

SHRI GIRISHKUMAR RAMNARAYAN SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, TDS-2, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS whereby the appellant is treated in default u/s 206C and demand of Rs.3,07,689/- is raised u/s. 206C(1), and Rs. 2,46,151/- is raised u/s 206C(7), totaling to Rs.5,53,840/-. Girishkumar Ramnarayan Shah vs.ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– (4) That the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in not giving adequate and reasonable opportunity

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. BANSAL SHIP BREAKERS PVT. LTD.,, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1945/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit(Osd), Tds Circle M/S.Bansal Ship Breakers P. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs D/9, Opp: Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Nr.Ram Mantra Mandir, Kalavibid, Bhavnagar. Gujarat. Pan : Aaacb 8758 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri O.P. Pathak, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar

section 206(1) need not to do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for re-use in manufacturing process or producing article or things. It does not say that such declaration has to be obtained at the very same moment when sale is effected. In the present case, the assessee

TORRENT ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1562/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 ) बनाम/ Torrent Energy Ltd. The Ito Torrent House Ward-8(1) Vs. Nr.Dinesh Hall Ahmedabad Ashram Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct 8570 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar & Shri Parikh Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 19/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–8, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cit(A)-Xiv/516/13-14 Dated 12.03.2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Here-In-After Referred To As "The Act") Dated 21/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Dismissing Ground No. 1 Of The Appellant'S Appeal Before Him Challenging The Very Validity Of The Assessment Order Torrent Energy Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst.Year - 2011-12 Impugned Before Him, On The Ground That It Was General In Nature & Did Not Require Adjudication By Him.

TDS, the learned AR requested the bench to send the matter to the file of AO for verification in accordance to the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Torrent Energy Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2011-12 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee in the instant case

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

206), the jurisdictional Gujarat High had applied the decisions of the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1) and CIT v. Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. (233 ITR 468) wherein it had been held that unless the expenditure was in the capital field, it could not be regarded as expenditure for the acquisition

THE ITO, TDS-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAXMI SALES & ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2008-09

section 206(7). Orders of the lower authorities were, set aside. 10. Appeals of the assessee are allowed.” Recently, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in tax appeal No.519 of 2016 Tax Appeal No.526 of 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS

THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AHMEDABAD VADODARA EXPRESS WAY CO.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Before Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1381 To 1386/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-06 To 2010-11

206(1C) are clearly not applicable in the case of the appellant. The words 'for the purpose of business' in section 206C(1C) is related to 'another-person', i.e., the lessee /licensee and not to the person awarding the contract i.e. the person liable for collecting TCS. The condition of business purpose applies to the licensee/lessee

THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AHMEDABAD VADODARA EXPRESS WAY CO.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Before Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1381 To 1386/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-06 To 2010-11

206(1C) are clearly not applicable in the case of the appellant. The words 'for the purpose of business' in section 206C(1C) is related to 'another-person', i.e., the lessee /licensee and not to the person awarding the contract i.e. the person liable for collecting TCS. The condition of business purpose applies to the licensee/lessee

THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AHMEDABAD VADODARA EXPRESS WAY CO.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Before Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1381 To 1386/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-06 To 2010-11

206(1C) are clearly not applicable in the case of the appellant. The words 'for the purpose of business' in section 206C(1C) is related to 'another-person', i.e., the lessee /licensee and not to the person awarding the contract i.e. the person liable for collecting TCS. The condition of business purpose applies to the licensee/lessee

THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AHMEDABAD VADODARA EXPRESS WAY CO.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Before Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1381 To 1386/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-06 To 2010-11

206(1C) are clearly not applicable in the case of the appellant. The words 'for the purpose of business' in section 206C(1C) is related to 'another-person', i.e., the lessee /licensee and not to the person awarding the contract i.e. the person liable for collecting TCS. The condition of business purpose applies to the licensee/lessee

THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AHMEDABAD VADODARA EXPRESS WAY CO.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Before Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1381 To 1386/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-06 To 2010-11

206(1C) are clearly not applicable in the case of the appellant. The words 'for the purpose of business' in section 206C(1C) is related to 'another-person', i.e., the lessee /licensee and not to the person awarding the contract i.e. the person liable for collecting TCS. The condition of business purpose applies to the licensee/lessee

THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AHMEDABAD VADODARA EXPRESS WAY CO.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in all the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Before Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1381 To 1386/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-06 To 2010-11

206(1C) are clearly not applicable in the case of the appellant. The words 'for the purpose of business' in section 206C(1C) is related to 'another-person', i.e., the lessee /licensee and not to the person awarding the contract i.e. the person liable for collecting TCS. The condition of business purpose applies to the licensee/lessee

AHMEDABAD STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, TDS CIRCLE, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

TDS, Circle, Ahmedabad dated 27/03/2019 needs to be rectified. I.T.A No. 2211/Ahd/2025 Ahmedabad Strips Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2012-13 03. That the Appellant Company has paid all the Taxes and liabilities of TDS/TCS for the year under consideration. However, the order passed u/s 2026C(6A) r.w.s. 206C (7) of the Act without appreciating the facts on records is erroneous

SHRI AZIZBHAI A.LADA,,BHAVNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,TDS-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

TDS-4, 497/6AB, Gulmohar Ahmedabad Park,Shishuvihar Circle, Bhavnagar-364001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AANPL 4907G Appellant by : Shri Parimal Singh Parmar, AR Respondent by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 04 -01-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 10-01-2018 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order

THE DCIT, (TDS),, BARODA vs. ELECON ENGINEERING CO.LTD.,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 2251/Ahd/2013 & 2104/Ahd/2014 A.Y.2007-08 to 2008-09 Page No. 2 2. The revenue has raised following ground of appeal:- “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,27,30,166/- made

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. ELECON ENGINEERING CO.LTD.,, ANAND

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 2251/Ahd/2013 & 2104/Ahd/2014 A.Y.2007-08 to 2008-09 Page No. 2 2. The revenue has raised following ground of appeal:- “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,27,30,166/- made