THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI YAGNESH DAYABHAI VYAS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

248/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. The brief facts leading to the issue is this the assessee had made interest payment to Citi Finance for Rs. 7,96,995/- and Rs. 27,54,253/- to Gruh Finance, on which

KIRI INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 37. In the above judgment, the claim of the assessee for interest expenses was denied as it defaulted to make the payment of advance tax as per the provisions of the Act. The advance tax is nothing but income tax only which the assessee has to pay on his income. In the instant case the default relates

INFIBEN AVENUES LTD (FORMERLY INFIBEAM INCORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS at appropriate rate had also been deducted by the assessee company at the time of grant of ESOP benefits to its employees. Accordingly, in view of the judicial precedents on the subject as on date, which have consistently taken the view that ESOP expenses are allowable in the hands of assessees under section 37 and looking into the facts

DEEP MULTIPLEX PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) (1), BARODA

In the results, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1719/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Deep Muliplex P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.1(1)(4) 9, Arunoday Society Baroda. Vs 2, Mangaljyot Apartment Alkapuri Baroda Pan : Aabck 4719 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

TDS under section 194I of the Act, the income it has earned was in the nature of rental income, the same was to be treated under the head “income from house property” but and not under “business income: as claimed by the assessee. The AO accordingly calculated income of the assessee at Rs.43,94,534/- under the head “income from

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

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

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

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

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

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

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

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

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

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

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

section 37, will require to be shown by the assessee for application of the netting principle. 33.1 The case law relied upon by the assessee before the AO/CIT-A does not apply to the facts of the case on hand. As such the case law relied upon by the AO/CIT-A is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore

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

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 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