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, 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

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD 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 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, 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

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 1168/Ahd/2011 decided on 11.07.2014 for AY 2006-07 grants identical depreciation relief. We also draw support therefrom for allowing the impugned depreciation claimed. This ground is accepted. 14. This leaves us with assessee’s last substantive ground challenging Section 40(a)(ia) of Rs.1

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 1168/Ahd/2011 decided on 11.07.2014 for AY 2006-07 grants identical depreciation relief. We also draw support therefrom for allowing the impugned depreciation claimed. This ground is accepted. 14. This leaves us with assessee’s last substantive ground challenging Section 40(a)(ia) of Rs.1

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016 ( AY 2012-13) AYs: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 1168/Ahd/2011 decided on 11.07.2014 for AY 2006-07 grants identical depreciation relief. We also draw support therefrom for allowing the impugned depreciation claimed. This ground is accepted. 14. This leaves us with assessee’s last substantive ground challenging Section 40(a)(ia) of Rs.1

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal ITA 2693/Ahd/2014, ITA 305/Ahd/2015, cross objection 01/Ahd/2015 & 41/Ahd/2015 all are dismissed

TDS has not been deducted was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the act. 4. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee stating that commission paid to non-resident agent was not liable to tax under

THE DCIT(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal ITA 2693/Ahd/2014, ITA 305/Ahd/2015, cross objection 01/Ahd/2015 & 41/Ahd/2015 all are dismissed

TDS has not been deducted was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the act. 4. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee stating that commission paid to non-resident agent was not liable to tax under

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NABROS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

268. 26.2 In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT-A. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In relation to Gain on forex Rs. 1,16,29,805/- 27. The assessee submitted that the income from the foreign currency fluctuation is part of export turnover

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),(TPO), BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

268. 26.2 In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT-A. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In relation to Gain on forex Rs. 1,16,29,805/- 27. The assessee submitted that the income from the foreign currency fluctuation is part of export turnover