OM YASH PROJECTS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.40/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2023-24 Om Yash Projects Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Office No. 1113, Aaron Spectra, बनाम/ Ward-3(1)(1), V/S. Rajpath Rangoli Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aacco4734C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kaushik Kejriwal & Ms. Kushboo Shah, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Additional / Joint From The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Dated 26.11.2024, In Connection With The Intimation Under Section 143(1) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2023-24, Issued By The Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bangalore, Dated 09.01.2024. Om Yash Projects Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2023-24

Section(s)/ Rules of the IT Act 1 Rule 37BA Erroneous/Proportionate On the facts and circumstances of the case Disallowance of TDS Credit as well as law on the matter, the CIT(A) has erred in proportionately reducing the TDS credit based on turnover discrepancies between books of accounts and Form 26AS, even though the assessee has claimed TDS correctly

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

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 no TDS

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

253, read with section 69A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal Appealable orders [Aggrieved party Assessee, a builder, received on money while selling properties constructed by it - Assessing Officer taxed entire on money received by assessee - Assessee contended before Tribunal that not entire on money received but only profit element could be taxed in its hands - Tribunal substantially

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

253, read with section 69A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal Appealable orders [Aggrieved party Assessee, a builder, received on money while selling properties constructed by it - Assessing Officer taxed entire on money received by assessee - Assessee contended before Tribunal that not entire on money received but only profit element could be taxed in its hands - Tribunal substantially

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

253, read with section 69A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal Appealable orders [Aggrieved party Assessee, a builder, received on money while selling properties constructed by it - Assessing Officer taxed entire on money received by assessee - Assessee contended before Tribunal that not entire on money received but only profit element could be taxed in its hands - Tribunal substantially

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. HINDVA BUILDERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

253, read with section 69A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal Appealable orders [Aggrieved party Assessee, a builder, received on money while selling properties constructed by it - Assessing Officer taxed entire on money received by assessee - Assessee contended before Tribunal that not entire on money received but only profit element could be taxed in its hands - Tribunal substantially

SANDEEPKUMAR MITHULAL MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(10), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1002/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sandeepkumar Mithulal Mehta, I.T.O., 7, Rajasthan Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(10), Opp. Meghdoot Petrol Pump, Ahmedabad. Sahibaug, Ahmedabad.

253 ITR 798 held as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

253 ITR 749) for the proposition that for the purpose\nof section 32, registration in the assessee's own name is not mandatory if\nbeneficial ownership and business use are established.\n80.\nOn this issue, the learned AR placed reliance on the findings of the\nlearned CIT(A), whereas the learned DR supported the order of the\nAssessing Officer

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

253 ITR 749) for the proposition that for the purpose\nof section 32, registration in the assessee's own name is not mandatory if\nbeneficial ownership and business use are established.\n80.\nOn this issue, the learned AR placed reliance on the findings of the\nlearned CIT(A), whereas the learned DR supported the order of the\nAssessing Officer

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

253 ITR 749) for the proposition that for the purpose\nof section 32, registration in the assessee's own name is not mandatory if\nbeneficial ownership and business use are established.\n80. On this issue, the learned AR placed reliance on the findings of the\nlearned CIT(A), whereas the learned DR supported the order of the\nAssessing Officer

NARENDRASINH PRAVINSINH JADEJA,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

TDS is not deducted for labour payment is not valid ground because for every labour payment provisions of Section 194C are not applicable. The Ld. AR further submitted that how the Assessing Officer arrived at the figure of Rs. 28,84,211/- is not enumerated in assessment order. The Ld. AR submitted that there is not requirement to show acceptance

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

TDS credit of Rs. 42,830/- while calculating demand of Rs. 2,32,474/-. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the learned AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case

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

TDS credit of Rs. 42,830/- while calculating demand of Rs. 2,32,474/-. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the learned AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case

VIJAYBHAI DASHRATHBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us: -

253 ITR 192. The ld. Departmental Representative primarily relied on the observations made by ld. CIT(A) in his order and confirmed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue for consideration before us is scope of Explanation 3 to section

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

TDS. Admittedly, the payer is claiming an expense but the assessee is not showing corresponding income in its books of accounts as the work was not completed up to the certain stage. In fact the assessee accounts for the income upon the completion of level of work, therefore the advances from the customer are shown as liability in the books

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

TDS. Admittedly, the payer is claiming an expense but the assessee is not showing corresponding income in its books of accounts as the work was not completed up to the certain stage. In fact the assessee accounts for the income upon the completion of level of work, therefore the advances from the customer are shown as liability in the books

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

TDS. Admittedly, the payer is claiming an expense but the assessee is not showing corresponding income in its books of accounts as the work was not completed up to the certain stage. In fact the assessee accounts for the income upon the completion of level of work, therefore the advances from the customer are shown as liability in the books

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

TDS. Admittedly, the payer is claiming an expense but the assessee is not showing corresponding income in its books of accounts as the work was not completed up to the certain stage. In fact the assessee accounts for the income upon the completion of level of work, therefore the advances from the customer are shown as liability in the books