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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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 in respect of levy of late filing fees

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

AMIT SURESHBHAI MASRANI,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.330/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Amit Sureshbhai Masrani The Ito Ward-1(1) Old Lig-566 Bhavnagar Vs. Anandnagar Bhavnagar-364 005 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Avdpm0160B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Smt. Aditi Sheth, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Nilabhra Dasgupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 29/08/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 01/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cit(A)-6/40/15-16 Dated 28/11/2016 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 18/03/2015 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Action Of Ao Of Disallowing An Amount Of Rs.17,59,085/- U/S.40(A)(Ia) R.W.S. 194H Of The Act. Amit Sureshbhai Masrani Vs. Ito Asst.Year - 2012-13 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Action Of Ao Of Disallowing Rs.16,22,125/- Out Of Retailer Support Incentive Expenses U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

6 Sim Cards to which Eload balance of Rs. 10,500/- and 50 sim cards are added. After sale of Rs.6,000 Eload and 20 Sim of Rs.400, Eload balance received is Rs.4,200/- i.e., Kashyap retains Eload balance of Rs.300. Cash received by assessee is Rs.6,000+Rs.400. AO held that there is a principal agent relationship and payments

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

6) dated 13-02-2015 was issued to all the above four parties and they were duly served on them. Accordingly, the appellant's contention that the identity of the parties has been proved from the fact that the notices have been served is correct. 5.2.3.3. Further, from examining the copies of bank statements and annual accounts of the investor

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

6) dated 13-02-2015 was issued to all the above four parties and they were duly served on them. Accordingly, the appellant's contention that the identity of the parties has been proved from the fact that the notices have been served is correct. 5.2.3.3. Further, from examining the copies of bank statements and annual accounts of the investor

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

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

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

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

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

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