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 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 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 ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

250 and No comments for the smallness of 92,800 amount. 4 PhenyleTrimethyle 5,87,523/- The appellant would like to point Ammonium out that there is a mistake on the Chloride part of ld. TPO in taking average price at Rs. 299.27 instead of Rs. 246.10. Summarised table of quantity sold to Non AEs and average price thereof

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

FORTUNE BARODA NETWORK PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS on the payments made by it.” 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. counsel by referring the section 153(2A) of the act contended that order u/s. 263 r.w.s. 254 of the act passed by the ld. Pr. CIT on 30-03-2017 is bad in law as the same has been passed after