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

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

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

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

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, 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

CREST COMPOSITES & PLASTICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of Ground

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. In response thereto, the assessee vide letter dated 22.11.2016 furnished details of services rendered, which were towards commission for collection of old and doubtful debts, sales promotion, commission for loan syndication through SIDBI. The Ld. AO however rejected the assessee’s claim by holding that no documentary evidence was I.T.A No. 2917/Ahd/2017

PIRAMAL FINANCE PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2)(b) of the Act was not invoked before making adhoc disallowance of 50% of ITA No.1273/Ahd/2018 (PiramalFinance Pvt. Ltd.vs. ACIT) A.Y.– 2014-15 - 15 – guarantee commission. Even in the case where the provision of Section 40A is invoked, the AO has to establish that the expenditure was excessive or unreasonable having regard to fair market value of the payment

AKSHATAM CONSTRUCTION LLP,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1559/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Akshatam Construction Llp, D.C.I.T., 302, Silver Coin, Vs. Circle-1(2), Shrenik Park Char Rasta, Vadodara. Nr. Akota Statdium, Vadodara-390020. Pan: Aaxfa6302N

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, we are of the view that it was the onus upon the Revenue based on record with the comparative cases before reaching to the conclusion that the assessee has incurred excessive expenditure under the head labour charges by way of making payment to the related person. The assessee has certainly filed the quotations

INTAS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, R-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made disallowance of Foreign Exchange loss on capital assets amounting to Rs.86,27,682/- as per the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of sales promotion amounting to Rs.81,23,963/- under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAJAJ HERBALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2,15,75,500/- including interest of Rs. 97,716/- paid to one Magma Fin Corp Ltd. the Non Banking Financial Corporation (NBFCs). It was also noticed that TDS was not deducted on the interest paid to such company though in terms of the provision of Section 194A(1) of the Act the assessee was under the obligation to deduct

M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD.,,DEESA vs. THE JT.CIT, B.K.RANGE,, PALANPUR

In the result, ground number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

section 40A(3) are not attracted where the parties are identified and there was no material on record to doubt the genuineness of payment. In the case of Walford Transport vs. CIT 240 ITR 902 at page 906, it was held that where a transaction is found to be genuine and the identity of the payee is established, a liberal

BASE METAL CHEMICALS,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: The First Appellate Authority Which Was Decided By Ld. Cit(A) Vide The Impugned Order & The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 02-09-2016 declaring income I.T.A No. 361//Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Base

GUJARAT SURFACTANTS,,MEHSANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PATAN,, PATAN

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee firm has taken loan from such party to cater from short and urgent gap of cash flow and working capital requirements for its day today business activities. These loans are not secured finances and involve lot of risk and therefore the rate of interest was higher