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

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 of an enduring benefit; ITA nos.1577/AHD/2015 with 8 others Asstt. Years 2006-07 & others 4 (b) that the Gujarat High Court had applied the above decisions of the Supreme Court even

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. M/S. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

THE DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. RANJIT BUILDCON LTD.,, UNJHA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company

VIJAY M.MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

TDS has been made u/s 194C which shows that the contracted as well as the contractor have themselves treated the relationship as a contractual arrangement. iii. Various government contractees have issued tenders for works contract to the lowest bidder. iv. Ownership risks never vested in the assessee. ITA Nos. 2938/Ahd/2011 & 8 Ors. (Vijay M. Mistry Construction Pvt. Ltd.) A.Ys

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VIJAY M. MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

TDS has been made u/s 194C which shows that the contracted as well as the contractor have themselves treated the relationship as a contractual arrangement. iii. Various government contractees have issued tenders for works contract to the lowest bidder. iv. Ownership risks never vested in the assessee. ITA Nos. 2938/Ahd/2011 & 8 Ors. (Vijay M. Mistry Construction Pvt. Ltd.) A.Ys

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

TDS, and late payment of taxes aggregating to Rs.\n34,56,637/-, which were directly related to specific assets or statutory\nliabilities and had no nexus with earning exempt income. The CIT(A)\naccepted this contention and directed that such interest should be excluded\nfrom the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). On re-computation, the interest\ndisallowance under Rule

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

TDS, and late payment of taxes aggregating to Rs.\n34,56,637/-, which were directly related to specific assets or statutory\nliabilities and had no nexus with earning exempt income. The CIT(A)\naccepted this contention and directed that such interest should be excluded\nfrom the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). On re-computation, the interest\ndisallowance under Rule

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

TDS, and late payment of taxes aggregating to Rs.\n34,56,637/-, which were directly related to specific assets or statutory\nliabilities and had no nexus with earning exempt income. The CIT(A)\naccepted this contention and directed that such interest should be excluded\nfrom the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). On re-computation, the interest\ndisallowance under Rule

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

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case

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

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case

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

TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act and also as per the provisions of respective DTAA's. ( Page166 of the appellate order). 8.1 In any case