N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC), Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), Virtual 400 ITR 409 and 370 ITR 547 (SC). The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271H of the Act after 1.7.2012. Both the parties are directed to come up before us with their contentions on this observation regarding the position of law on the issue noted by us above. The impugned appeals are accordingly fixed for seeking the above clarification on 13th February, 2025. 26. Thereafter when the matter was ultimately heard on 25th

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271H of the Act after 1.7.2012. Both the parties are directed to come up before us with their contentions on this observation regarding the position of law on the issue noted by us above. The impugned appeals are accordingly fixed for seeking the above clarification on 13th February, 2025. 26. Thereafter when the matter was ultimately heard on 25th

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271H of the Act after 1.7.2012. Both the parties are directed to come up before us with their contentions on this observation regarding the position of law on the issue noted by us above. The impugned appeals are accordingly fixed for seeking the above clarification on 13th February, 2025. 26. Thereafter when the matter was ultimately heard on 25th

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271H of the Act after 1.7.2012. Both the parties are directed to come up before us with their contentions on this observation regarding the position of law on the issue noted by us above. The impugned appeals are accordingly fixed for seeking the above clarification on 13th February, 2025. 26. Thereafter when the matter was ultimately heard on 25th

SUMANGAL GLASS PVT. LTD.,BHACHAU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2636/Ahd/2017 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Sumangal Glass Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, Plot No.617/1-618-620, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nh-8A,Po.Samakhiyari Ahmedabad (Piprapati), Bhachau Taluka, Samakhiyari-370150. Pan: Aaics6992G

TDS into Government Treasury. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to represent his case before the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), and remit the issue back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication

TESTEC ASIA LIMITED,UNITED ARAB EMIRATES vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VADODARA, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.44/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Testec Asia Limited The Dy.Director Of Income Tax बनाम/ United Arab Emirates Circle, International Taxation V/S. P.O. Box No.16799, Dubai, Vadodara- 390 007 United Arab Emirates – 999999 (Or) Villa 11, Street 5, Medows 1, Emirates Hill, United Arab Emirates – Not Listed 999999 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aajct 4035 A (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Virat Bhavsar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

Section 139(5) of the Act on 31.12.2022, claiming TDS credit of Rs.57,28,565/-. The CPC processed the revised

HUBTOWN BUS TERMINAL (AHMEDABAD) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE(TDS), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 201(1A). The total demand raised was ₹3,45,28,003/-, comprising TDS of ₹1,41,50,821/- and interest

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

28. The assessee has made certain donations from different units and claimed deduction under section 80G/80GGB on the same which are detailed as under: Particulars Abd-Distri Bhiwandi Surat DUGEN SUGEN Total Political 14500000 14500000 Donation 80GGB Other Donation 2500000 2500000 80G-100% Other Donation 23800000 10077500 10000000 20000000 63877500 80G-50% Total 40800000 10077500 10000000 20000000 28.1 The assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

28. The assessee has made certain donations from different units and claimed deduction under section 80G/80GGB on the same which are detailed as under: Particulars Abd-Distri Bhiwandi Surat DUGEN SUGEN Total Political 14500000 14500000 Donation 80GGB Other Donation 2500000 2500000 80G-100% Other Donation 23800000 10077500 10000000 20000000 63877500 80G-50% Total 40800000 10077500 10000000 20000000 28.1 The assessee

MUKESH M. SHAH & CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CPC-, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Mukesh M. Shah & Co., Dcit, 7Th Floor, Heritage Chambers, Vs Cpc-Bengaluru B/H. Bikanerwala, Nr. Azad Society, Nehrunagar, Ahmedabad – 380015 Pan : Aaifm 0810 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

28,248/- as claimed by the appellant in its return of income. 2. The learned C.I.T. (Appeals) while not granting the full credit of TDS as claimed by the appellant in its return of income has overlooked the fact that the appellant follows “Cash Method” of accounting as per statutorily permitted in terms of the provisions of Section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Us.

28,062/- written back TOTAL : 51,47,532/- 2.4. It is here to be mentioned that the AO has not granted the deduction on the aforesaid amounts by saying that none of the above income can be held to be generated from the manufacturing activities of the undertaking, and therefore, the nature of above incomes cannot be held as income

SAFAL HOSPITALITY AND MAINTANANCE SERVICE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

28-10-2015 declaring total income at Rs. 29,76,740/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 20-09- 2016 was issued and served upon the assessee. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act with detailed questionnaire were issued on 17-01-2017 and 24-07-2017 and served upon

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MS. JAGSON COLORCHEM LIMITED, PHASE -II GIDC ESTATE VATVA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

TDS was made thereon. However, the AO did not agree with the submissions of the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the commission of Rs.5,63,28,206/- under the provision of section

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

28. The ld.DR was unable to point out any contrary decision either of the Hon’ble High Courts or of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue, though he relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below. 29. We have heard both the parties and we have also gone through the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

28. The ld.DR was unable to point out any contrary decision either of the Hon’ble High Courts or of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue, though he relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below. 29. We have heard both the parties and we have also gone through the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

28. The ld.DR was unable to point out any contrary decision either of the Hon’ble High Courts or of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue, though he relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below. 29. We have heard both the parties and we have also gone through the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court