SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS (INR 51,34, 571/-) 42. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that ground number 6 is not being pressed, since this issue has been rectified by way of subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. 43. Accordingly, ground number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 44. Ground

M/S. SHREE GANESH BUILDERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(10),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 995/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 M/S. Shree Ganesh Builders, I.T.O, 67, Gokuldham Society, Vs. Ward-3(2)(10), Mahalaxmi Society, Ahmedabad. Opp. Smruti Mandir, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad.

section of the Act. Thus, there was a difference between the income shown by the assessee viz a viz the expenses recorded by Ranjit Buildcon Limited in its books of accounts. As such, the party namely Ranjit Buildcon Limited has deducted the TDS on the element of service tax which was shown as an expense in in its accounts

NIMBESHWAR GUDADRAM DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY CIRCLE-3(3)), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

TDS was not applicable in the case of NBFCs. The Assessing Officer held that the failure to deduct tax attracted disallowance of 30% of the expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and accordingly disallowed Rs. 12,36,316/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The second addition pertains to disallowance

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 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 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 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