M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

220/- and disallowed the same by adding to the total income of the assessee. 33 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 83. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Learned CIT (A), and submitted that the provisions of Explanation-1 (ha) of Section 2(42A) requires that

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

220/- and disallowed the same by adding to the total income of the assessee. 33 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 83. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Learned CIT (A), and submitted that the provisions of Explanation-1 (ha) of Section 2(42A) requires that

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)

section 200A. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Vadodara [“the CIT(A)”] has erred in facts and in law in conforming the action of the AO in charging interest u/s 220(2) of ITA No. 2432/Ahd/2018(M/s. Orion Steel Corporation vs. ACIT) A.Y. 2014-15(26Q, Q1) 2 the Income tax act, 1961 when the demand itself

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LTD.,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12 and the third appeal being ITA No.1928/Ahd/2016 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.06.2016 passed by the Learned CIT(A)-Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LTD.,-GPCL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT, GANDHINAGAR RANGE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12 and the third appeal being ITA No.1928/Ahd/2016 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.06.2016 passed by the Learned CIT(A)-Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LTD. - GPCL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT, GANDHINAGAR RANGE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12 and the third appeal being ITA No.1928/Ahd/2016 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.06.2016 passed by the Learned CIT(A)-Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward

BANK OF BARODA,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS return) and interest of " 20,328/- u/s 220(2) of the Act). The assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals) against late filing levy u/s 234E of the Act. The main ground raised by the assessee in his Statement of Facts/Grounds of Appeal was that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision for raising of demand

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

TDS under s.195 of the Act does not arise. 13. The Ld.DR relied upon the order of the AO to fasten the obligation under s.195 of the Act on the assessee and extensively relied upon the agreement executed by the assessee with the non-residents for availing their services qua the provisions of DTAA. The Ld.DR submitted that the aforesaid

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

TDS under s.195 of the Act does not arise. 13. The Ld.DR relied upon the order of the AO to fasten the obligation under s.195 of the Act on the assessee and extensively relied upon the agreement executed by the assessee with the non-residents for availing their services qua the provisions of DTAA. The Ld.DR submitted that the aforesaid

MIRANT NAVINBHAI PARIKH,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT ,CIRCLE INT.TAXA., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountnat Member & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

2. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts upholding action of Learned AO in restricting the credit for TDS to Rs.59,278 as against Rs.1,93,498 claimed by the appellant in the return of income, thereby granting short credit of TDS to the extent of Rs.1,34,220. It is submitted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA. vs. TRUFORM TECHNO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 68 of the. Act were duly submitted during the course of assessment proceedings itself. It therefore appears that the addition has been made purely on the basis of surmises and conjectures because the appellant had already proved the genuineness of the credit entries. No addition can be made on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and that no document

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. TRUFORM TECHNO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 68 of the. Act were duly submitted during the course of assessment proceedings itself. It therefore appears that the addition has been made purely on the basis of surmises and conjectures because the appellant had already proved the genuineness of the credit entries. No addition can be made on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and that no document

ADF FOODS LTD.,,NADIAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KHEDA CIRCLE,, NADIAD

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee as well as one appeal filed by the Revenue are set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the matters as per law

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

220(2) of the Act on delayed payment of tax though the same is not in the nature of penalty. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs.1,37,87,905/- invoking section 40(a)(i) for non-deductiori of TDS

ADF FOODS LTD.,,NADIAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KHEDA CIRCLE,, NADIAD

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee as well as one appeal filed by the Revenue are set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the matters as per law

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

220(2) of the Act on delayed payment of tax though the same is not in the nature of penalty. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs.1,37,87,905/- invoking section 40(a)(i) for non-deductiori of TDS

THE JT. CIT (OSD) KHEDA RANGE, NADIAD vs. ADF FOODS LIMITED, NADIAD

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee as well as one appeal filed by the Revenue are set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the matters as per law

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

220(2) of the Act on delayed payment of tax though the same is not in the nature of penalty. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs.1,37,87,905/- invoking section 40(a)(i) for non-deductiori of TDS

ADF FOODS LTD.,,NADIAD vs. THE DCIT, KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD

In the result, all three appeals filed by the assessee as well as one appeal filed by the Revenue are set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the matters as per law

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

220(2) of the Act on delayed payment of tax though the same is not in the nature of penalty. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs.1,37,87,905/- invoking section 40(a)(i) for non-deductiori of TDS

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS 34,146 10 Disallowance of Bonus and Leave 6,14,958 Encashment u/s.43B 11 Disallowance of Provision for Excise Duty 2,96,220 u/s.43B 12 Disallowance of interest towards China 10,37,451 Project 13 Disallowance of prepaid Insurance 2,39,630/- 14 Disallowance u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Act. 20,26,491/- 15 Disallowance u/s.14A

SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS 34,146 10 Disallowance of Bonus and Leave 6,14,958 Encashment u/s.43B 11 Disallowance of Provision for Excise Duty 2,96,220 u/s.43B 12 Disallowance of interest towards China 10,37,451 Project 13 Disallowance of prepaid Insurance 2,39,630/- 14 Disallowance u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Act. 20,26,491/- 15 Disallowance u/s.14A

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