PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

246/ and for AY 2017- 18 the company has shown loss of Rs. 13,99,799/- whereas it is claimed to have provided unsecured loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to assessee during the year under consideration. Similarly, in the case of ANR Finance Limited, the P&L account of the ANR Finance Ltd. for FY 2015-16 shows

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

246 (Delhi) wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that: “13. The Court finds that in none of the above grounds is there any reference to any inquiry conducted by the AO of the CIT (A) on examining the above documents, which were available with the AO. The crucial element of explaining how, on the basis of such record

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

246 (Delhi) wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that: “13. The Court finds that in none of the above grounds is there any reference to any inquiry conducted by the AO of the CIT (A) on examining the above documents, which were available with the AO. The crucial element of explaining how, on the basis of such record

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. ASTRAL PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES,, BARODA

In the result, appeal, the appeal and cross-objection, both are dismissed

Bench: The Ao U/S 195(2) Of The Act, Though It Was Obligation Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Itself Has Deducted Service Tax

Section 195 of the Income-tax Act comes into force for deducting TDS on foreign payments paid by the resident assessee to non- resident agents only when their income is chargeable under Indian Income Tax Law. In the instant case, the TDS liability does not arise on such commission payments which is an offshoot from its chargeability to income

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. ASTRAL PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES,, BARODA

In the result, appeal, the appeal and cross-objection, both are dismissed

Bench: The Ao U/S 195(2) Of The Act, Though It Was Obligation Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Itself Has Deducted Service Tax From The Payments Made To M/S. Urja International, Usa Which Proves That The

Section 195 of the Income-tax Act comes into force for deducting TDS on foreign payments paid by the resident assessee to non-resident agents only when their income is chargeable under Indian Income Tax Law. In the instant case, the TDS liability does not arise on such commission payments which is an offshoot from its chargeability to income

THE DCIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE,, PANCHMAHAL vs. THE PANCHMAHAL STEEL LTD.,, PANCHMAHAL

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.634/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Dcit, Panchmahal Circle Vs. The Panchmahal Steel Ltd. Godhra 389 001. Gidc, Kalol Dist: Panchmahal,Gujarat.

TDS on foreign payments paid by the resident assessee to non-resident agents only when the payment made to the non-residents. Various court decisions have held that in such type of situations, the provisions of deducting tax will not arise as the overseas commission income of a foreign agent is not taxable in India in the absence of 'business

CHIRAG MAHENDRABHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

246/- which is inclusive of education cess. The assessee claimed credit for TDS of Rs. 2,96,734/- and thereby claiming a refund of Rs. 29,488/-. The return was processed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Computer Processing Centre, Bangalore CPC Centre, 2 Bangalore on 10.06.2015 by intimation under Section

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only similarity in different receipts specifically mentioned in Explanation (baa) is that they do not form part of turnover and hence the residuary clause must

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only similarity in different receipts specifically mentioned in Explanation (baa) is that they do not form part of turnover and hence the residuary clause must

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only similarity in different receipts specifically mentioned in Explanation (baa) is that they do not form part of turnover and hence the residuary clause must

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only similarity in different receipts specifically mentioned in Explanation (baa) is that they do not form part of turnover and hence the residuary clause must

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only similarity in different receipts specifically mentioned in Explanation (baa) is that they do not form part of turnover and hence the residuary clause must

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

246 ITR 445 iii. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. vs DCIT 266 ITR 46 (Guj) holding insurance claim and other miscellaneous income as excludible under Explanation (baa). (c) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only similarity in different receipts specifically mentioned in Explanation (baa) is that they do not form part of turnover and hence the residuary clause must

TRANSWIND COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS certificates issued by the respective principals. This may in fact be on account of certain variation in the accounting treatments or error of omissions and commissions that may have been committed by the principals etc. 5.1 Reliance is also placed on the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.DHARMEN MARBLE & STONE, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 794/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Dharmen Marble & Stone, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabfd5172B

TDS of Rs. 16,897/- credited from city union bank and Prism Cement, thus the corresponding income of Rs. 1,68,970 also remain unexplained and escaped assessment. Therefore, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. With C.O.No.171/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 5 4.3 However

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GHCL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the view taken

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

section 36(1)(iii) can only be allowed on the interest if the assessee borrows capital for its own business. Hence, it was held that interest on the borrowed amount could not be allowed if such amount had been advanced to a subsidiary company of the assessee. With respect, we are of the opinion that the view taken

CB DOCTOR VENTILATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

246] f) Precision Products vs. ACIT (ITA No. 4/Ahd/2011)(Ahd)(2012) g) CIT v. P.M. Electronics Limited. 15 DTR 258 (Delhi High Court) h) CIT v. AIMIL Limited & Ors. (2010) 35 DTR (Del) 68 (Delhi High Court) i) CIT v. ANZ Information Technology 318 ITR 123 (Karnataka) j) CIT v. Nipso Poly Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 84 DTR 424 (H.P. High