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

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

THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P.INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1) M/s. Citybuild Realtors (P.) Ltd. (2) M/s. Indiana Classic Realtors (P.) Ltd. (3) M/s. Minu Constructions (P.)Ltd. The shareholders of the assessee company are Shri Mohd. Raft Bagdia - 50 per cent and Shri Tehsin Rafi Bagdia - 50 per cent. The complete picture is depicted in the chart placed on record. The legislature have rightly restricted the TDS requirement

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P. INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

1) M/s. Citybuild Realtors (P.) Ltd. (2) M/s. Indiana Classic Realtors (P.) Ltd. (3) M/s. Minu Constructions (P.)Ltd. The shareholders of the assessee company are Shri Mohd. Raft Bagdia - 50 per cent and Shri Tehsin Rafi Bagdia - 50 per cent. The complete picture is depicted in the chart placed on record. The legislature have rightly restricted the TDS requirement

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

section 145(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO estimated the profit from work contract at Rs. 95,58,606/- being net profit margin of 12% on total receipt and made addition of Rs. 89,05,774/- after adjusting income of Rs. 6,52,832/- declared by the assessee from impugned labour contract. 19. On appeal by the assessee

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

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 271(1

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

TDS certificate issued by the Executive Engineer. The assessee has raised RA bills, contractor & construction work bills for the activities undertaken by it at the part rate as agreed by in the tender and work contract & collected the payment for the same. g. The receipt of payment u/s.194C itself clearly indicates that the assessee company has acted as a contractor

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

TDS certificate issued by the Executive Engineer. The assessee has raised RA bills, contractor & construction work bills for the activities undertaken by it at the part rate as agreed by in the tender and work contract & collected the payment for the same. g. The receipt of payment u/s.194C itself clearly indicates that the assessee company has acted as a contractor

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

TDS certificate issued by the Executive Engineer. The assessee has raised RA bills, contractor & construction work bills for the activities undertaken by it at the part rate as agreed by in the tender and work contract & collected the payment for the same. g. The receipt of payment u/s.194C itself clearly indicates that the assessee company has acted as a contractor

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

253/- to Gruh Finance, on which no TDS was deducted by the appellant as the case made out by the Revenue. So far as the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) with respect to Gruh Finance, the appellant had submitted a chart in order to explain that TDS has been deducted and paid during the relevant assessment year which

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