RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

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), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

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

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:

40A(2)(b) and those who are not covered. But absence of such distinction cannot be taken to mean that the AO cannot lift the corporate veil and look into the real nature of transaction to establish that the apparent is not real and the transaction entered into by an assessee is nothing but a colourable Sabri Chemicals Pvt.Ltd

APEX HEALTH CARE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. I.T.A No. 547/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 3 Apex Health Care Ltd. vs. DCIT 2.2. In reply the assessee justified the increase by stating that on verification of the job work charges billed, it was much lesser than the cost incurred for doing job work. In view of the same, charges were

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

40A(2)(b) stating that assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of the expenditure. On perusal of the material on record, it is observed that during the course of assessment, the assessee has explained the specific services rendered by the parties to whom the commission was paid along with the detail of their expenses and TDS on the transaction

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 40A(3). Therefore, all depended upon the manner of making the estimate. If it had been made in a way which covered the entire position regarding income and expenditure, naturally there would not be any scope for further deductions. 57.5 At this juncture, we also find pertinent to note that even assuming the closing stock declared by the assessee

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 40A(3). Therefore, all depended upon the manner of making the estimate. If it had been made in a way which covered the entire position regarding income and expenditure, naturally there would not be any scope for further deductions. 57.5 At this juncture, we also find pertinent to note that even assuming the closing stock declared by the assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 40A(3). Therefore, all depended upon the manner of making the estimate. If it had been made in a way which covered the entire position regarding income and expenditure, naturally there would not be any scope for further deductions. 57.5 At this juncture, we also find pertinent to note that even assuming the closing stock declared by the assessee

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 40A(3). Therefore, all depended upon the manner of making the estimate. If it had been made in a way which covered the entire position regarding income and expenditure, naturally there would not be any scope for further deductions. 57.5 At this juncture, we also find pertinent to note that even assuming the closing stock declared by the assessee

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1),AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under\nconsideration

40A(2)(b) of the Act, with respect to similar\ncommission expenses. Copy of the order passed by the ITAT has been placed\non record before us.\n\n15. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that even for A.Y. 2014-\n15 the ITAT Ahmedabad in assessee's own case in ITA No. 2917/Ahd/2017\nvide order dated 23.02.2022 deleted similar

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

40A(2)(b) of the Act being payment of interest to the related party. In view of the above, the AO disallowed the amount of interest debited to the profit and loss account for Rs. 2,84,70,757/- and the depreciation of Rs. 17,16,078/- attributable to the amount of interest capitalized in the year under consideration. Thus

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

40A(2)(b) of the Act being payment of interest to the related party. In view of the above, the AO disallowed the amount of interest debited to the profit and loss account for Rs. 2,84,70,757/- and the depreciation of Rs. 17,16,078/- attributable to the amount of interest capitalized in the year under consideration. Thus

THE DCIT ( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ),, AHMEDABAD vs. BLACK PEARL SERVICES LIMITED, G.S.E.C. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2813-2815/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 To 2013-14 The D.C.I.T, Black Pearl Services Limited, (International Taxation), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Gujarat Chamber Of Ahmedabad Commerce Building, ‘’Sangram.’’ Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaecb1176H

40A(2)(b) of the Act being payment of interest to the related party. In view of the above, the AO disallowed the amount of interest debited to the profit and loss account for Rs. 2,84,70,757/- and the depreciation of Rs. 17,16,078/- attributable to the amount of interest capitalized in the year under consideration. Thus

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. KRONE FINSTOCK PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2917/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Income Tax Krone Finstock Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Officer, “Monarch House” Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp: Ishwar Bhuwan, Ahmedabad Nr. Commerce Six Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacck 9850 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri T. Sankar, Sr. D.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R.

section 40A(2)(b) of the I. T. Act, 1961. It was also observed that assessee company have its client base in Ahmedabad since long and there was no reason to utilise the infrastructure facility of Monarch Research and Brokerage Pvt. Ltd. and Monarch Project and Finmarkets Ltd., Guregaon, situated outside Ahmedabad. As per the MOU agreement which was executed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INFRA PIPES PVT. LTD.,, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were ITA Nos. 813 & 987/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Gujarat Infrapipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2 heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2

GUJARAT INFRAPIPES PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were ITA Nos. 813 & 987/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Gujarat Infrapipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2 heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2

DILIP HIRALAL MEHTA, HUF,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1454/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Dilip Hiralal Mehta-Huf Vs. Ito,Ward-5(2)(2) Prop. Of Ispat Incorporate Ahmedabad. B-208, Nirman Complex Opp: Havmor Restaurant Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaehm 4045 F

2) of the Act. 4. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee, an individual filed his return of income on 15.9.2009 declaring total income at Rs.7,48,860/- which was finalized under section 143(3) of the Act on 25.11.2011 upon determining total income at Rs.8,01,160/-; and addition of Rs.52,3000/- was also

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RIDDHI STEEL & TUBE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ridhi Steels & Tubes Pvt.Ltd. Acit, Cir.5 Ahmedabad. 83/84, Village Kamod Vs. Piplaj Pirana Road Aslali Piplaj, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaccr 0175 J "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Acit, Cir.5 Ridhi Steels & Tubes Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad. 83/84, Village Kamod Vs. Piplaj Pirana Road Aslali Piplaj, Ahmedabad

2-3 folds. In brief grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of commission expenses amounting to Rs.53,56,535/-. 13. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has paid commission to 18 parties amounting to Rs.53,56,535/-. Out of these 18 parties, there are 5 HUFs