THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS in the appropriate rate were also deducted. So far as the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. is concerned the said deposit was withdrawn during the F.Y. 2011-12. Notice was issued to the assessee in regard to the violation of provision of section 11(5) in respect of such investment made with Shriram Transport Finance

STHAPTHYA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 814/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Sthapathya Buildcon Pvt Ltd., D.C.I.T, Pavan Petroleum, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nutun Mill Compund, Ahmedabad. Near City Gold Cinema, Saraspur, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aalcs8818G

2" is not applicable to the facts of the case. (g) Gujarat High Court in Aryan Arcade, 84 Taxmann.com 293, the contention is as per para 4 of the judgement and finding is as per para 10 wherein, the decision of Gujarat High Court in Rayon Silk 221 ITR 155, it is held that merely because the order

SHREE HARI ENTERPRISE ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nfollowing terms:\n\ni) Issue No

TDS in partial manner,\ntherefore, in view of clause (a) to Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act.\nAccordingly

HBC LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 328/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) िनधा"रण वष" Hbc Lifesciences Private Principal Commissioner बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Limited Of Income Tax-3 Vs. B-218, Mayur House, Ahmedabad G.I.D.C., Electronic Estate Sector-25, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382016 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch1407M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr 20/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Pcit’) Dated 25.03.2023 In Exercise Of The Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short], For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018-19 Was Filed By The Assessee On 30.10.2018 Declaring

263 of the Act dated 17.02.2023 that the business promotion expense claimed by the assessee was in the nature of freebies/monetary grant for promoting products and was required to be disallowed. Further that the AO had passed the assessment order without making proper enquiry and the required addition in respect of this claim. It is not apparent

DHANLAXMI CREDIT CO. OP. SOCIETY LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, PATAN

In the result, Ground Number 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

263 on ground that Assessing Officer had allowed deduction on interest earned by assessee, a cooperative society, from investment made with a cooperative bank under section 80P(2)(d) which was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. The Tribunal reversed Principal Commissioner’s order holding that cooperative bank was a cooperative society registered under Gujarat State Cooperative Societies

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

TDS provisions, expenses incurred for earning exempt income, ICDS adjustments, and refund claims. Accordingly, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 29.06.2021 and 15.12.2021 respectively, and the assessee furnished its responses thereunder. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had earned exempt income amounting to Rs.8,28,12,464/- during

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

TDS credit claimed Rs.2,400/- under Rs.2,400/- under section 194-IA section 194-IA 9 Refund granted or Denied – ITR filed Denied – ITR filed denied late late 3.5 Subsequently, the PCIT, examined the assessment record under section 263 of the Act and found that the assessment order dated 06.03.2023 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

TDS credit claimed Rs.2,400/- under Rs.2,400/- under section 194-IA section 194-IA 9 Refund granted or Denied – ITR filed Denied – ITR filed denied late late 3.5 Subsequently, the PCIT, examined the assessment record under section 263 of the Act and found that the assessment order dated 06.03.2023 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

THY ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), , AHMEDABAD vs. M & B ENGINEERING LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

2)(b) read with section 9(1)(i) of Income Tax Act. 2.16. Regarding the issue of obtaining no deduction certificate under section 195 it is seen that for the applicability of the provisions of this section, the sum must be chargeable under the provisions of the income tax Act. Section 195 provides for deduction of tax by the person

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2% of TDS non-deduction, expenses to the tune of 100% should not be disallowed as the companies must have paid income tax on receipt of subscription charges, it is pertinent to mention here done in Section 40 vide Section 11 of Finance Act 2012 is effective from the 1st day of April 2013 and the present case pertains

THE SANKHEDA JETPUR PAVI TALUKA GINNING PRESSING COTTON SALE CO.OP SOCIETY LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS deductions by these companies, which were subsequently claimed by the assessee. This deduction was deemed disallowable, resulting in an underassessment of income amounting to Rs. 24,51,022/-. Thus, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was determined to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In the 263 notice, it was mentioned that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. THE GUJARAT STATE CO. OP. HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

263 which was rightly reversed by Tribunal - Held, yes [In favour of assessee) ***  The controversy sought to be canvassed with regard to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in case of Katlary Kariyana Merchant Sahkari Sarafi Mandali Ltd. v Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [2022] 140 taxmann.com

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. THE GUJARAT STATE CO. OP. HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

263 which was rightly reversed by Tribunal - Held, yes [In favour of assessee) ***  The controversy sought to be canvassed with regard to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in case of Katlary Kariyana Merchant Sahkari Sarafi Mandali Ltd. v Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [2022] 140 taxmann.com

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. THE GUJARAT STATE CO. OP. HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

263 which was rightly reversed by Tribunal - Held, yes [In favour of assessee) ***  The controversy sought to be canvassed with regard to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in case of Katlary Kariyana Merchant Sahkari Sarafi Mandali Ltd. v Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [2022] 140 taxmann.com

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

263 which was rightly reversed by Tribunal - Held, yes [In favour of assessee) *** • The controversy sought to be canvassed with regard to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in case of Katlary Kariyana Merchant Sahkari Sarafi Mandali Ltd. v Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [2022] 140 taxmann.com

SHRI CHAITANYA BANSIBHAI. NAGORI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

2)(b)(ii) of the Act. v) The original booking letter dated 07.07.2010 was not available to the assessee and therefore, the assessee requested the builder/organizer i.e. Aqua Infrastructures for issuing copy of letter and it issued the duplicate copy of booking letter in new format which included the clause of TDS @ 1%. This was nothing but a clerical error

DILIP HIRALAL MEHTA, HUF,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1454/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Dilip Hiralal Mehta-Huf Vs. Ito,Ward-5(2)(2) Prop. Of Ispat Incorporate Ahmedabad. B-208, Nirman Complex Opp: Havmor Restaurant Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaehm 4045 F

263 of the Act, which ultimately touches the merit of the matter. We therefore think it proper to deal with the merit on the issue as raised before us by the assessee. 3. First ground on merit relates to disallowance of Rs.4,73,852/- under section 40A(2) of the Act. 4. The brief facts leading to the case