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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS under section 195 read with section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 18. At the outset, we note that the issue raised is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA 539/Ahd/2018 which we have decided against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee vide Paragraph No. 14 of this order. Therefore respectfully following the same

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS under section 195 read with section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 18. At the outset, we note that the issue raised is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA 539/Ahd/2018 which we have decided against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee vide Paragraph No. 14 of this order. Therefore respectfully following the same

TORRENT ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1562/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 ) बनाम/ Torrent Energy Ltd. The Ito Torrent House Ward-8(1) Vs. Nr.Dinesh Hall Ahmedabad Ashram Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct 8570 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar & Shri Parikh Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 19/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–8, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cit(A)-Xiv/516/13-14 Dated 12.03.2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Here-In-After Referred To As "The Act") Dated 21/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Dismissing Ground No. 1 Of The Appellant'S Appeal Before Him Challenging The Very Validity Of The Assessment Order Torrent Energy Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst.Year - 2011-12 Impugned Before Him, On The Ground That It Was General In Nature & Did Not Require Adjudication By Him.

TDS, the learned AR requested the bench to send the matter to the file of AO for verification in accordance to the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Torrent Energy Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2011-12 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee in the instant case

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 DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

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 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 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