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

va) of the Act. 24. We have noted that the assessee had pleaded this before the ld.CIT(A) who has not taken note of the same. Considering the same, therefore, we hold, it is fit case to restore the issue back to the file of the ld.AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law, after verifying the facts

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

va) relates to statutory obligations and does not necessarily require incriminating material for such an addition, as it is independent of the search findings and pertains to the non-compliance with statutory provisions. 7.2. After considering the facts, submissions, and the CIT(A)’s order, except for the ground related to PF/ESIC contributions, which will be addressed separately, the assessee

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

va) relates to statutory obligations and does not necessarily require incriminating material for such an addition, as it is independent of the search findings and pertains to the non-compliance with statutory provisions. 7.2. After considering the facts, submissions, and the CIT(A)’s order, except for the ground related to PF/ESIC contributions, which will be addressed separately, the assessee

ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1817/Ahd/2016 2012-13 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Arvind Mills Premises, Ahmedabad. Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan No. Aaach7252A 2. 2056/Ahd/2016 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Arvind Lifestyle Circle-1(1)(2), Brands Ltd., Ahmedabad. 3. 2377/Ahd/2017 2013-14 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad. 4. 2618/Ahd/2017 2014-15 Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ito Ward-1(1)(3) Ltd., Ahmedabad

36(1 )(va) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated, inter alia. (a) that when deduction for employer's contribution could not be denied where payment was made after the due date prescribed in the respective law if payment was made before the due date for filing income-tax return (vide the First Proviso to Section

SABRI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1019/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ A/2/236, Gidc, Nandesari, Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Baroda – 391 340. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 9406 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

va) of the Act i.e. date by which the concerned assessee was required as an employer to credit employees' contribution to the employees' account in the Provident Fund under the Provident Fund Act and/or in the ESI Fund under the ESI Act.” However, the ld. AR before us has submitted that the due date for depositing the employee’s contribution

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

36(1) (va) of the Act? 2 Aark Inforsoft Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT AY : 2017-18 3. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs. 55,91,349/- on account of difference in receipt between "Form 26AS" and "Profit and Loss account"? 4. Whether

KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

36(1)(iii) cannot go together as the same results in double taxation not permissible as per the scheme of the Act. 9. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations. and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have

STHAPATI ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIORS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2361/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Sthapati Architecture & Dcit, बनाम/ Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 8, Vs. 502, New York Plaza, Ahmedabad. Opp. Judges Bunglow, Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs 8758 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Sakar Sharma, C.A. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Sankar, Sr. D.R.

36(1)(va) of the Act i.e. date by which the concerned assessee was required as an employer to credit employees' contribution to the employees account in the Provident Fund under the Provident Fund Act and/or in the ESI Fund under the ESI Act.” Respectfully following the above judgment laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court, we find no infirmity

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)

section 36(1)(va). The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 41,649/- towards excess payments/receipts appearing in form 26AS. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 7800/- 7 I.T.A No. 76/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. Safal Hospitality and Maintainance Service vs. DCIT towards depreciation and addition of Rs. 330/- in respect of TDS

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub- brokerage for IPO. 6.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by directing to treat profit from KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub- brokerage for IPO. 6.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by directing to treat profit from KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub- brokerage for IPO. 6.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by directing to treat profit from KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub- brokerage for IPO. 6.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by directing to treat profit from KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub- brokerage for IPO. 6.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by directing to treat profit from KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub- brokerage for IPO. 6.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by directing to treat profit from KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub- brokerage for IPO. 6.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by directing to treat profit from KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

TDS as per section 194H on payment in the nature of Sub- brokerage for IPO. 6.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by directing to treat profit from KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 sale of shares held only up to 30 days as business

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