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

section 206C(6A) and is to be assessed as such by treating the assessee as “assessee-in- default” for not collecting TCS from the collecting party. Whereas the case of the assessee is that, the collecting entity is doing job of toll collection from different plazas on behalf of the assessee and the ITA No.1381/Ahd/2015 & 5 Anothers 5 collection amount

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

section 206C(6A) and is to be assessed as such by treating the assessee as “assessee-in- default” for not collecting TCS from the collecting party. Whereas the case of the assessee is that, the collecting entity is doing job of toll collection from different plazas on behalf of the assessee and the ITA No.1381/Ahd/2015 & 5 Anothers 5 collection amount

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

section 206C(6A) and is to be assessed as such by treating the assessee as “assessee-in- default” for not collecting TCS from the collecting party. Whereas the case of the assessee is that, the collecting entity is doing job of toll collection from different plazas on behalf of the assessee and the ITA No.1381/Ahd/2015 & 5 Anothers 5 collection amount

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

section 206C(6A) and is to be assessed as such by treating the assessee as “assessee-in- default” for not collecting TCS from the collecting party. Whereas the case of the assessee is that, the collecting entity is doing job of toll collection from different plazas on behalf of the assessee and the ITA No.1381/Ahd/2015 & 5 Anothers 5 collection amount

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

section 206C(6A) and is to be assessed as such by treating the assessee as “assessee-in- default” for not collecting TCS from the collecting party. Whereas the case of the assessee is that, the collecting entity is doing job of toll collection from different plazas on behalf of the assessee and the ITA No.1381/Ahd/2015 & 5 Anothers 5 collection amount

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

Section. (3) That the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of ITO- 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

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

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

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 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 18/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 20/ 03/2019

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 151/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

Section 206C of the Act on sale of certain items of ‘scrap’ arising from ship breaking activity is in question. The CIT(A) has dealt with issue as under: “5.5 Ground No. 4 to 7 are related to each other as are against the order u/s.206C(1) r,w.s.206C(6), 206C(6A) and 206C(7

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

OFFICE OF THE GEOLOGIST,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO (TDS), GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2011-12

TDS), B-Block, Third Floor, Vs 401, Udyog Bhawan, Bahumali Bhavan, Hajipura, Sector-11, Gandhinagar Himatnagar, Sabarkantha-383001 PAN : AAALO 0111 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia, AR Revenue by : Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 14/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1805/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

Section 206C of the Act. ITA No. 1805/Ahd/17 [Adani Enterprise Ltd. vs. DCIT TDS] A.Y. 2009-10 - 7 - 11. We accordingly

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 UMESHKUMAR HARILALA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, TDS-3, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

TDS)-3 A/401, Sukan Apartment, Nr. St. Ahmedabad Merry School, Naroda, Ahmedabad-382330 [PAN No.AGSPS6516P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jinesh Shah, A.R. Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri Dr. Mukesh Jain, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 15.09.2022 02.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.06.2018 passed

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