THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ASCENDUM SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: ♦ Income-tax Officer -Ward

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: Income-tax Officer-Ward

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: Income-tax Officer-Ward

M/S. JAY SOMNATH IRON WORKS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 521/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) M/S. Jai Somnath Iron Jcit बनाम/ Range-9 Works Vs. 1St Floor, Pratyaksh Kar 4, Asta Mitra Estate, Nr. Bhawan, Ambawadi, Vadilal Ice Factory, Ahmedabad Dudheshwar Road, Ahmedabad- 380004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aab Fj1 886 A .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

TDS is to be made. So far as remaining amount of Rs.4,01,241/- is concerned the parties may be assessed to tax the AO may verify the same as to tax paid by them. (iii) Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia)- Rs. 1,03,122/- It was sub contract payments to Laxmi Eng: Co. In case it is assessed

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS at Rs. 1,46,141/- and addition in respect of bad debt of Rs. 10,60,667/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). After giving effect to CIT(A) order total income was reduced to Rs. nil after setting off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,06,93,299/-. 3.3 The case of the assessee

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, (INTL.TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). On verification of the remittances made and withholding tax deducted by the assessee, the AO was of the view that the assessee had made remittances to four parties of USA, one-party of Canada and one-party of Mexico for clinical trials, in respect of which no tax was deducted

ACIT, (INT. TAXA)-1, AHMEDABAD vs. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). On verification of the remittances made and withholding tax deducted by the assessee, the AO was of the view that the assessee had made remittances to four parties of USA, one-party of Canada and one-party of Mexico for clinical trials, in respect of which no tax was deducted

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

241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated any benefit derived from its associated enterprises namely Lambda USA whereas it has advanced interest free loan of EURO 49,999/-. Thus, the question arises whether there is a need to make any adjustment

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

241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated any benefit derived from its associated enterprises namely Lambda USA whereas it has advanced interest free loan of EURO 49,999/-. Thus, the question arises whether there is a need to make any adjustment

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

241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated any benefit derived from its associated enterprises namely Lambda USA whereas it has advanced interest free loan of EURO 49,999/-. Thus, the question arises whether there is a need to make any adjustment

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

241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated any benefit derived from its associated enterprises namely Lambda USA whereas it has advanced interest free loan of EURO 49,999/-. Thus, the question arises whether there is a need to make any adjustment

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

241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated any benefit derived from its associated enterprises namely Lambda USA whereas it has advanced interest free loan of EURO 49,999/-. Thus, the question arises whether there is a need to make any adjustment

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

241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated any benefit derived from its associated enterprises namely Lambda USA whereas it has advanced interest free loan of EURO 49,999/-. Thus, the question arises whether there is a need to make any adjustment

THE ITO, TDS-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAXMI SALES & ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2008-09

section 206C(1A) subject to collection of declaration in Form 27C from the buyer being manufacturer of actual user and submit the same within the seven days of the next following month in the office of the concern CCIT/CIT(TDS) as per Rule 37C r.w.s. 206C of the I. T. Act and denied the Form 27C filed by the appellant

INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS has been deducted on the income earned by the AEs on account of GHO and RHO services and requisite compliances have been done by the AEs in India. 16. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / TPO / DRP has erred in ignoring Rule of consistency in view of the fact that

INEOS STYROLUTION INDIA LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ADDIT.CIT , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS has been deducted on the income earned by the AEs on account of GHO and RHO services and requisite compliances have been done by the AEs in India. 12. That the AO / TPO / DRP has erred in law and on facts in ignoring Rule of consistency in view of the fact that no adjustment was made by the Learned

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

TDS on such expenditure, therefore the same cannot be allowed as deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Hence, the AO disallowed the said expenditure as business expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. 25. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.DRP who has confirmed the order of the AO. 26. Being aggrieved by the order

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

241 (Delhi) vi) Marathon Electric India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2020) ITA No. 5257/Del/2011 (Mum.Tri.) vii) DCIT vs. Rabo India Finance Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 420 (Mum. Tri.) viii) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 133 taxmann.com 500 (Ahd. Tri.) The Ld. AR also relied upon the following cases wherein it was categorically held that the TPO cannot hold