ISHIT KAMLESHBHAI SHETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS had\nalready been deducted. However, not satisfied with the explanation,\nthe AO proceeded to levy penalty under section 270A(2)(b) by treating\nthe income returned as “under-reported income” solely on the ground\nthat no return was filed within the time prescribed under section\n139(1), despite income exceeding the maximum amount not\nchargeable

LESSO BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

TDS") amounting to INR 277,599 as claimed by the Appellant in its return of income. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee filed its Return of Income claiming the loss of Rs. 30.65 crores. The CPC vide its intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 10-08-2021 determined the loss

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

277 12,48,87,401 8.1. The AO treated the entire unaccounted cash receipts as the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. The AO did not allow for any deductions or expenses related to these receipts, effectively treating the gross receipts as taxable income. The AO also made an addition under Section 69C, treating the unexplained expenditure

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

277 12,48,87,401 8.1. The AO treated the entire unaccounted cash receipts as the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. The AO did not allow for any deductions or expenses related to these receipts, effectively treating the gross receipts as taxable income. The AO also made an addition under Section 69C, treating the unexplained expenditure

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS at Rs. 1,46,141/- and addition in respect of bad debt of Rs. 10,60,667/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). After giving effect to CIT(A) order total income was reduced to Rs. nil after setting off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,06,93,299/-. 3.3 The case of the assessee

INFOANALYTICA CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty u/s

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 270A (9) of the Act viz. (a) misrepresentation of suppression of facts and (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence. Further, we observe that the AO has disallowed the sum of Rs.68,277/- u/s.143(3) of the Act, on account of non-deduction of TDS

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. KOTA BARAN TOLLWAY PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 80-IA(4) of the Act for the simple reason that the assessee had incurred losses for the impugned year. 12. In the case of ITO vs. Keval Construction 33 taxmann.com 277 (Gujarat), the High Court held that in case of disallowance / addition on account of non-deduction of TDS

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

TDS which was reflected in Form 26AS has to be granted fully by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant entire credit which is reflected Form 26AS. Ground No. 9 of A.Y. 2017- 18 is partly allowed. 35. As regards to Ground No. 7 of Assessment Year 2018-19, interest under Section 234D

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

TDS which was reflected in Form 26AS has to be granted fully by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant entire credit which is reflected Form 26AS. Ground No. 9 of A.Y. 2017- 18 is partly allowed. 35. As regards to Ground No. 7 of Assessment Year 2018-19, interest under Section 234D

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

TDS which was reflected in Form 26AS has to be granted fully by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant entire credit which is reflected Form 26AS. Ground No. 9 of A.Y. 2017- 18 is partly allowed. 35. As regards to Ground No. 7 of Assessment Year 2018-19, interest under Section 234D

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: Income-tax Officer-Ward

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: Income-tax Officer-Ward

M/S. JOY GLOBAL (UK) LIMITED,(EARLIER KNOWS AS JOY MINING MACHINERY LIMITED OR 'JMML'),KOLKATTA vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXN.)-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee

277/- is considered as taxable income of the PE of the assessee company in India for A.Y.2016-17. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.4,18,29,768/- is made to the total returned income of the assessee company for A.Y.2016-17 on this issue. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 61 are also initiated for concealment of income

AXIS BANK LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. JT.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 852/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Axis Bank Limited, J.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Samtheshwar Mahadev, Ahmedabad. Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K

277 of the paper book. 20.5 We also draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coral Electronic Pvt Ltd. reported 274 ITR 336, where it was held as under: 8. In the instant case the amount that was received was only as charges for the services

JT.CIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 852/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Axis Bank Limited, J.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Samtheshwar Mahadev, Ahmedabad. Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K

277 of the paper book. 20.5 We also draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coral Electronic Pvt Ltd. reported 274 ITR 336, where it was held as under: 8. In the instant case the amount that was received was only as charges for the services

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

277) (2008) (SC) without appreciating the fact that the same is not applicable to the instant case as the Appellant had not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income and it has relied upon judicial precedents and the accounting standards applicable to the Bank to claim the lease rent expense on SLM basis 1.8. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

277) (2008) (SC) without appreciating the fact that the same is not applicable to the instant case as the Appellant had not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income and it has relied upon judicial precedents and the accounting standards applicable to the Bank to claim the lease rent expense on SLM basis 1.8. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

277) (2008) (SC) without appreciating the fact that the same is not applicable to the instant case as the Appellant had not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income and it has relied upon judicial precedents and the accounting standards applicable to the Bank to claim the lease rent expense on SLM basis 1.8. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred