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

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

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 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 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

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

250(6) of the Act, confirming the penalty levied by the AO for both the assessment years. 2. While the appeal in IT No.2679/Ahd/2017 and 2681/Ahd/2017 pertains to the issue of levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 2 for the Asst.Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, the appeal

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

250(6) of the Act, confirming the penalty levied by the AO for both the assessment years. 2. While the appeal in IT No.2679/Ahd/2017 and 2681/Ahd/2017 pertains to the issue of levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 2 for the Asst.Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, the appeal

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

250(6) of the Act, confirming the penalty levied by the AO for both the assessment years. 2. While the appeal in IT No.2679/Ahd/2017 and 2681/Ahd/2017 pertains to the issue of levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 2 for the Asst.Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, the appeal

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

250(6) of the Act, confirming the penalty levied by the AO for both the assessment years. 2. While the appeal in IT No.2679/Ahd/2017 and 2681/Ahd/2017 pertains to the issue of levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 2 for the Asst.Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, the appeal

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4),, VADODARA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA,, VADODARA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

250 permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may direct AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him before disposing of any appeal before him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 46A not withstanding anything contained in Rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) may direct production

THE ITO, WARD-2(4),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

250 permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may direct AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him before disposing of any appeal before him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 46A not withstanding anything contained in Rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) may direct production

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. SHRI PRADEEPSHANKAR B. JHA, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 4 of Revenue ‘s appeal is dismissed

250 permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may direct AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him before disposing of any appeal before him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 46A not withstanding anything contained in Rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) may direct production

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , which appeal before ld. CIT(A) has in turn arisen from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- 22/1035873474(1) , dated 24-09-2021, and the second appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 87/Ahd/2024 has arisen

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2), (FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , which appeal before ld. CIT(A) has in turn arisen from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- 22/1035873474(1) , dated 24-09-2021, and the second appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 87/Ahd/2024 has arisen

NAVJIVAN (KALYAN) CO.OP. HOS. SCO. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal on technical ground-in the return of income, claim of deduction was made by selecting section 80P(2) (f) instead

RATNESHWARI CO.OP.CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT., PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-

250 of the Act. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of Rs.10,23,047/-. Ratneshwari Co op Cr Soc Ltd Vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 2– 3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the ld. CIT(A), ought