THE DCIT,TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2216/Ahd/2013 2007-08 Dcit Nirma Limited Tds Circle, Nirma House, Ashram Ahmedabad Road, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan No. Aaacn5350K Revenue By : Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. Dr. Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. With Shri Himanshu Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2021 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2007-08 Which Is Arising From The Order Of The Cit(A)-Xxi, Ahmedabad Dated 13.06.2013, In The Proceedings Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2007-08 (In Short “The Act”).

TDS in the hands of the assessee does not arise under Section 201(1) of the Act in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverage Private Ltd. reported in 293 ITR 226. 3.3 However, the Revenue carried the matter to the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in tax appeal

SHRI NARESHKUMAR P. PATEL,,BANASKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PALANPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: The Cit(A), But Without Any Success. The Assessee Is Now In Second Appeal Before Us. Shri Nareshkumar P Patel Vs. Ito Assessment Year : 2011-12 Page 2 Of 5

3 of 5 deducting the TDS may not have deposited with the Department. However, in such situation, the Department is to recover the said amount from the deductor and the assessee-deductee cannot deny the credit of the same. Identical question came to be considered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Yashpal Sahni (supra) and considering section

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

TDS. 13.2 However the AO rejected the contention of the assessee by observing that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was introduced by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f, 01-04-2013. Therefore it is not applicable for the year under consideration. 13.3 Without prejudice to the above, the AO also observed that to avail the benefit

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

TDS. 13.2 However the AO rejected the contention of the assessee by observing that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was introduced by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f, 01-04-2013. Therefore it is not applicable for the year under consideration. 13.3 Without prejudice to the above, the AO also observed that to avail the benefit

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

TDS. 13.2 However the AO rejected the contention of the assessee by observing that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was introduced by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f, 01-04-2013. Therefore it is not applicable for the year under consideration. 13.3 Without prejudice to the above, the AO also observed that to avail the benefit

SOPHOS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

3 on levy of additional interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act pursuant to the Advance Pricing I.T.A No. 466/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 13 Sophos Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Agreement entered into with the CBDT. Ld Counsel submits that the issue involved in the present grounds of appeal are also squarely covered by the decision

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

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

226 as under: "...................... ..It is well settled that the object of Section 147 of 'the Act' is not to make a roving or fishing enquiry. While it is open to the authority in an appropriate case to make an enquiry confidentially or otherwise -in order to obtain information or verify facts disclosed to him by the assessee or coming

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

226 as under: "...................... ..It is well settled that the object of Section 147 of 'the Act' is not to make a roving or fishing enquiry. While it is open to the authority in an appropriate case to make an enquiry confidentially or otherwise -in order to obtain information or verify facts disclosed to him by the assessee or coming

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

226/-on account of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act. 18. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the income from the notice pay and miscellaneous income amounting to " 9,62,549 and " 18,677/- respectively are not arising from the eligible business activities and therefore such income is not subject for deduction under section 80IB

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

226/-on account of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act. 18. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the income from the notice pay and miscellaneous income amounting to " 9,62,549 and " 18,677/- respectively are not arising from the eligible business activities and therefore such income is not subject for deduction under section 80IB

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

226/-on account of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act. 18. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the income from the notice pay and miscellaneous income amounting to " 9,62,549 and " 18,677/- respectively are not arising from the eligible business activities and therefore such income is not subject for deduction under section 80IB

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

226/-on account of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act. 18. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the income from the notice pay and miscellaneous income amounting to " 9,62,549 and " 18,677/- respectively are not arising from the eligible business activities and therefore such income is not subject for deduction under section 80IB

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

226/-on account of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act. 18. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the income from the notice pay and miscellaneous income amounting to " 9,62,549 and " 18,677/- respectively are not arising from the eligible business activities and therefore such income is not subject for deduction under section 80IB

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

226/-on account of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act. 18. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the income from the notice pay and miscellaneous income amounting to " 9,62,549 and " 18,677/- respectively are not arising from the eligible business activities and therefore such income is not subject for deduction under section 80IB

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

TDS), Ahmedabad (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot (v) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat (vi) Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara 16. It is evident from the above Notification that the PCCIT, Ahmedabad was having jurisdiction only over Chief Commissioner charges of Gujarat region. The PCCIT, Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction over DGIT (Inv.), Ahmedabad who was directly

NAVRANGPURA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS ought to be granted in this very year. After taking into consideration well reasoned finding of the ld.CIT(A), we do not find any force in this grounds of appeal. It is rejected. 36. Ground no.6: In this ground of appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.95

NAVRATNA ORGANISERS & DEV. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENT. CIRCLE 1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS ought to be granted in this very year. After taking into consideration well reasoned finding of the ld.CIT(A), we do not find any force in this grounds of appeal. It is rejected. 36. Ground no.6: In this ground of appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.95