SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 249(4), if assessee failed to pay the taxes on the returned income, then its appeal cannot be entertained on merit; b. The appeals are time barred; c. Form No.35 has not been duly signed and verified. 2. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the taxes have been paid along with return in form of TDS

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 249(4), if assessee failed to pay the taxes on the returned income, then its appeal cannot be entertained on merit; b. The appeals are time barred; c. Form No.35 has not been duly signed and verified. 2. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the taxes have been paid along with return in form of TDS

STHAPTHYA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 814/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Sthapathya Buildcon Pvt Ltd., D.C.I.T, Pavan Petroleum, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nutun Mill Compund, Ahmedabad. Near City Gold Cinema, Saraspur, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aalcs8818G

249, Delhi High Court as per relevant Pg. 255 in which the decision of, DG Housing 343 com 369 ITR 14(DEL), Globas Info com 369 ITR 14(DEL) has been referred and followed. (d) Narayan Tatu Rane, Mumbai ITAT, 70 Taxmann.com 227 in reference to "Explanation 2(a}", even after this explanation, it is held that no fishing

LAXMANJI KHODAJI SOLANKI (THAKOR),GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

249(4)\nof the Act ignoring fact that appellant has no taxable income\nand accordingly not liable for filing return of income.\n\n6. Ld. NFAC failed to pass order as per the provision of section\n250(6) of the Act and appellant prays that same may be set\naside to the file of CIT (A) / NFAC for readjudication

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ( SINCE MERGED WITH ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

249 and submitted that all the details of the items falling under the head data processing equipment were furnished which was duly considered by the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, the learned CIT (A) held that such items under the head data processing equipments are computers and other devices are connected to it. The learned AR in support of his contention

SALIM VALIMOHAMAND MEMAN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(5), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble

TDS Circle Ahmedabad. 4, Sahajanad Society Vs Danilimda Ahmedabad. PAN : ACBPM 7325 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Varis V. Isani, AR Revenue by : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15/07/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 26/07/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee

M/S. STALLION FINSTOCK PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act vide order even dated 29.11.2012 for all the assessment years, calculated on the basis of number of days delay in filing quarterly TDS return. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee

M/S. STALLION FINSTOCK PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act vide order even dated 29.11.2012 for all the assessment years, calculated on the basis of number of days delay in filing quarterly TDS return. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee

M/S. STALLION FINSTOCK PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act vide order even dated 29.11.2012 for all the assessment years, calculated on the basis of number of days delay in filing quarterly TDS return. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee

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

249 635-13 6,759,563 2,440,187 9,199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated

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

249 635-13 6,759,563 2,440,187 9,199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated

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

249 635-13 6,759,563 2,440,187 9,199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated

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

249 635-13 6,759,563 2,440,187 9,199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated

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

249 635-13 6,759,563 2,440,187 9,199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated

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

249 635-13 6,759,563 2,440,187 9,199,749 667-14 272,700 272,700 Grand 24,218,26 7,808,150 35,584,298 37,920,270 63,851,979 6,241,250 15,744,81 16,897,42 208,266,439 Total 0 2 1 10.9 However, we find that the assessee has not demonstrated

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

section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The AO has noticed that though the assessee stated to be engaged in the business of film exhibition, but no film exhibition activity was carried out. The source of its income was from leasing out multiplex to M/s.PVR Ltd., and M/s.Jubilant Food Works Ltd. In the year ITA No.1719 /Ahd/2017

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NASCENT INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2828/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Ito M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. A-805, Sapath-Iv, Opp. Ahmedabad Karnavati Club, Ahmedabad- 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Cn3 670 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Mehul K. Patel, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

TDS cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 13. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee deleted the penalty by observing as under: “6. I have perused the arguments of both sides and case laws relied upon. The penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act would be decided based on following observations

SAMIR SYNTHETICS MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Him.

TDS has been made since the handling charges was actually paid during the period from 01-04-2009 to 31-09-2009 and no amount remained payable at the year end. The assessing officer has not agreed with the submission of the assessee stating that assessee was liable to deduct tax as per the provision of section 194C