THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

TDS (column 7 of Schedle-TDS2) 11b TAXES PAID c TCS (column 7 of schedule-TCS 11c d Self Assessment Tax (from Schedule-IT) 11d e Total Taxes Paid (10a+10b+10c+10d) 10e 11 Amount payable (Enter if 9 is greater than 10e, else enter 0) 11 12 Refund (If 10e is greater than 9, also

DCIT, CIRCLE-2 (1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JAGSON COLORCHEM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.112/Ahd/2017 With Co No. 32/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Asstt. Years: 2013-14

260 (Rajasthan). Therefore, in view of the preceding discussion, the AO was not justified to hold that the commission payable to the overseas agents was deemed to accrue or arise in India and is taxable IT No. 112/Ahd/2017 A.Yr. 2013-14 CO. No. 32/Ahd/2017 8 under the Act in view of the specific Provisions of sections 5 (2)(b) read

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

260/- for consulting charges and Rs.6,31,578/- for supervision charges). The assessee was required to deduct TDS on the said charges paid to the non-residents as per provision of Section

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

260/- for consulting charges and Rs.6,31,578/- for supervision charges). The assessee was required to deduct TDS on the said charges paid to the non-residents as per provision of Section

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS of Rs. 6,02,000 u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 181&182/Ahd/2022 Keshavpriya Corp Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT Asst. Year –2015-16 3. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NF AC ) grievously erred in law as well as in facts in upholding the order passed by Id. Assessing Officer

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS of Rs. 6,02,000 u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 181&182/Ahd/2022 Keshavpriya Corp Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT Asst. Year –2015-16 3. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NF AC ) grievously erred in law as well as in facts in upholding the order passed by Id. Assessing Officer

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

TDS certificate is essential. 6. Whether this contention is correct, is the issue to be decided. 7. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act:— (i) Section 40(a)(i) of the Act :— "Section 40 - Amounts not deductible: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

RY MIDAS METACAST PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.435/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ry Midas Metacast Private The Ito बनाम/ Limited Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. A-21,Zaveri Industrial Estate Ahmedabad – 380 015 Kathwada Road Kathwada Ahmedabad – 382 415 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5807 M (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that the TDS is not deducted on Job work expenses of INR 28,64,747 (75,96,250 - 47,31,507) in as much as the company has duly deducted the TDS under applicable provisions on the amounts which are required to be deductible and therefore the disallowance

M S HOSTEL,NEW SAMA SAVLI ROAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), VADODARA, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS of Rs.43,260/-. Upon deduction of the same, the remaining amount has been shown as unsecured loan obtained from Smt. Palak A Shah during the year under consideration. Relevant to mention that Smt. Palak A Shah is the Administrative Head, possesses the degree of Masters in Business Administration from University of Houston-Downtown engaged in looking upon areas related

SHRI NEELESH H. AGRAWAL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.2378/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Shri Neelesh H. Agrawal Ito, Ward-5(2)(5) B-609, Fairdeal House Ahmedabad. Vs Nr.Swastik Char Rata Ahmedabad Pan : Agopa 4893 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nirav Popat, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.K.Goel, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

260/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the scrutiny assessment, the ld.AO has doubted some of the expenses claimed by the assessee viz. (a) interest expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) of Rs.1

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

260/- . The assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act , to the tune of Rs. 1,87,70,901/-. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The AO has claimed to have issued and served statutory notices

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

260/- . The assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act , to the tune of Rs. 1,87,70,901/-. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The AO has claimed to have issued and served statutory notices

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

260/- . The assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act , to the tune of Rs. 1,87,70,901/-. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The AO has claimed to have issued and served statutory notices