DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

244A of Rs.8,80,103/-. Subsequently, the matter was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice dated 05.09.2012 u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee followed by a further questionnaire dated 12.04.2013 u/s 142(1) calling for specific details and documents. In response thereto certain details and documents were filed on 25.04.2014 by the assessee. However, due to change

THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

244A of the IT Act of Rs.25,55,064 for AY 2011-12. The Kalupur Commercial Co.op. Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2011-12 - 2– (4) The learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in not adjudicating grounds relating to charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234Cof the IT Act. (5) Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, omit

THE ACIT,ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1384/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

2. Again during the course of appellate proceedings $hri Yogesh Shah, CA attended and filed submission dated 11/02/2014 on behalf of the appellant and the same is also reproduced hereunder for reference: "The assessment for the year under consideration was completed under section 143(3) of the Act after making various additions. The appellant had preferred appeal

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KANDLA PORT TRUST,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

Section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Refunds - Interest on -Assessment year 1993-94 - During assessment year 1993-94 amount paid by assessee towards TDS was Rs. 45,73,528 - Tax paid after original assessment was Rs. 1,70,00,320 - Assessee was entitled to refund of Rs. 2

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

244A of the Act. 21. That the above grounds of objection are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. 22. That the appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” 3. The issues raised by the assessee

M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

244A of the Act. 21. That the above grounds of objection are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. 22. That the appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.” 3. The issues raised by the assessee

TOSHIBA TECHNICAL SERVICES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. THE ADIT.,(INTL.TAXN.)-2, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year :2015-16 Toshiba Technical Services Vs. Acit, International International Corporation Taxation-2 (India Project Office) Ahmedabad. B-/12 Vijay Wadi Niwas Chs Ltd. Lokmanya Tilak Road Mulund East, Mumbai Pan : Aabct 9577 D

TDS to the extent of Rs. 2,29,07,477. 5. Interest under section 234D The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. 6. Interest under section 244A

SUZLON GUJARAT WIND PARK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2) of the Act for proposed reduction in refund. 9. Both the lower authorities have erred in interpreting the provisions of S. 244A of the Act in its correct perspective. 10. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHATHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

2. You have contended that no interest us. 244A is payable as the refund of Rs. 75,04,960/- is less than 10% of the tax amount. 3. You contention applicable only with reference to clause (a) or clause (aa) of Sec. 244A, which specifically deals with TDS, TCS. Advance Tax or Self- Assessment Tax paid u/s 140A. 4. Proviso

M/S. JOY GLOBAL (UK) LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWS AS JOY MINING MACHINERY LIMITED),KOLKATTA vs. THE DCIT (INT. TAXN.)-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

244A of the Act. 8. That the amount of refund for AY 2014-15 adjusted against AY 2012-13 by the Ld AO is incorrect. 3. The assessee, M/s Joy Global (UK) Ltd. (Formerly Joy Mining Machinery Ltd. –JMML), is a non-resident UK company. The assessee company had entered into a consolidated contract dated 15.10.2009 for all the issues

PARIMAL CHANDRAKANT ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

244A thereby assessed the total income at Rs. 98,41,250/-. 3.1. Perusal of the above assessment order by the Ld. PCIT, the assessee had sold a residential flats in Mumbai on 20.12.2014 for a consideration of Rs. 2.66 crores jointly with others and assesee’s 20% share was Rs. 53,20,000/-. The assessee has not offered the long

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

section 92C(2) of the Act. 6. That the learned AO / TPO / DRP has erred in law and on facts in rejecting consistent benchmarking approach followed by the Appellant, rejecting functionally comparable companies and arbitrarily cherry-picking companies for the purpose of benchmarking the transaction of sale of goods to Zydus USA. 7. That the learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred

VEER PLASTICS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT -4, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

244A of Rs. 4,83,616/- on the income tax refund which has already been included in total income assessed by AO; in utter disregard to the fact that in the course of original assessment proceedings, the AO has made necessary enquiries on all the above issues and after due verification, he has taken a conscious decision in accordance with

AESHA ASHISHBHAI SHAH LEGAL HEIR AND WIFE OF LATE ASHISH SUMATIBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1) PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 143(3) on 19.02.2016 determining total income at Rs. 66,15,560/-. Additions were made on account of interest u/s 244A, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), disallowance of bad debts and addition u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee’s appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on 24.10.2017. The matter then travelled to the Tribunal. Vide order

TORRENT SOLARGEN LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 90/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Torrent Solargen Limited Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम “Samanvay”, 600, Circle- 4(1)(2), Vs. Tapovan, Amabawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct0483G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Vartik Chokshi, Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr 27/08/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee (Tsl) Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 08.09.2022 For The Assessment Year 2016- 17. 2. There Was A Delay Of 95 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reason For Delay. It

2 – was submitted that the appeal order passed by NFAC was received vide registered mail on the email ID of Hemang Shah & Saurabh Mashruwala who were the authorized persons but due to oversight they did not bring this fact to the notice of the company in time. No physical copy of the order was received at the registered address

CHECKMATE FACILITY & ELECTRONIC SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

2. Without prejudice to above and on merits of the case your Appellant submits that for making addition of Interest of Rs.5,04,705/-u/s.244A of the Act, the AO had not given sufficient time and the Order was passed in haste and hurry and reply of the Appellant of 7-12-2019 was non-consider in his order