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

7. Further, as per the requirement of Schedule 6 for preparing Balance Sheet under the Companies Act, the licensed capacity, installed capacity, actual production and sales quantity is required to be furnished but the assessee has not complied the requirement under the Companies Act. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 27 51.1 In view of the above the AO held that

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

7. Further, as per the requirement of Schedule 6 for preparing Balance Sheet under the Companies Act, the licensed capacity, installed capacity, actual production and sales quantity is required to be furnished but the assessee has not complied the requirement under the Companies Act. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 27 51.1 In view of the above the AO held that

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

7. Further, as per the requirement of Schedule 6 for preparing Balance Sheet under the Companies Act, the licensed capacity, installed capacity, actual production and sales quantity is required to be furnished but the assessee has not complied the requirement under the Companies Act. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 27 51.1 In view of the above the AO held that

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

7. Further, as per the requirement of Schedule 6 for preparing Balance Sheet under the Companies Act, the licensed capacity, installed capacity, actual production and sales quantity is required to be furnished but the assessee has not complied the requirement under the Companies Act. A.Y. 2009-2010 with others 27 51.1 In view of the above the AO held that

M/S. PRAMUKH COTPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K.WARD- 2,, HIMATNAGAR

section 40(A)(3) of the Act ,provided in Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules,1962,since the assessee has not established that the payment in cash was made as prescribed by the Rules of the Government organization, which finding the Ld.Counsel for the assessee was unable to displace before us. 6.1 The balance disallowance of Rs.67

HIPOLIN LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1559/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Hipolin Limited, I.T.O, 4Th Floor, Madhuban Building, Vs. Ward-2(1)(3), Nr. Madalpur Garnala, Ahmedabad. Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaach3876J

TDS have been furnished to the department in the format and time prescribed for the same. In view of the same, following payments made are under assessment and required to be disallowed u/s 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Date Particular Vch type Vch No. Amount Total 06.10.2010 UP Bihar Journal JV1 01 1/1 0/008 51200 Roadlines Voucher

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

section 10A(2)(b) of the Act was of the general nature. Therefore, claim of commission payment to the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 9. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to Rs. 6 lacs after

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

7 M/s. Dineshchandra R. Agrawal Infraction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT assessee through bearer cheques which was in violations of the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. In the appellate proceedings, the appellant has simply mentioned that the payments were not made by way of cash. Further pleaded that there was no malafide intention on the part

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

7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On\ngoing through the records of the case, we observe that in the instant facts, the Assessing\nOfficer had made detailed inquiries into the claim of deduction of the assessee u/s.\n35(2AB) of the Act. The assessee had filed replies in relation to the queries raised

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

7. We note that the Ld.CIT(A) acted in accordance with the legal framework governing Section 153A assessments, correctly dismissing the assessee's objections and confirming the assessment under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) as valid. The discovery of substantial incriminating material during the search further solidified the CIT(A)’s decision to uphold the assessment. In case of addition

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

7. We note that the Ld.CIT(A) acted in accordance with the legal framework governing Section 153A assessments, correctly dismissing the assessee's objections and confirming the assessment under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) as valid. The discovery of substantial incriminating material during the search further solidified the CIT(A)’s decision to uphold the assessment. In case of addition

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

7).  In the given case, brands are owned by the Appellant, a legal entity and not by any division or unit. Further, brands are self-generated brands and not acquired by the Appellant and hence notional adjustment for charging of royalty is not permissible. ITA Nos. 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year

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

7).  In the given case, brands are owned by the Appellant, a legal entity and not by any division or unit. Further, brands are self-generated brands and not acquired by the Appellant and hence notional adjustment for charging of royalty is not permissible. ITA Nos. 1184/Ahd/2018 & 1225/Ahd/2018 Assessee : Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (I) Ltd Asst. Year

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

TDS liability arise under l.T.Act. • The car in this case per se was availed on a rental basis and the limit under 1941 was Rs. 1.8L. • It was not a car facility taken on contractual basis to be charged u/s 194C. 3. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is that the learned

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

7 – Urbanize Developers India Pvt. Ltd. As per 26AS statement, the total receipt from Urbanize Developers India Pvt. Ltd. was Rs.13,55,39,687/- on which TDS of Rs.1,35,57,968/- was deducted. In the return of income, the assessee had claimed credit for TDS of Rs.1,34,14,940/- only and the credit for balance TDS of Rs.1

BHAVESHKUMAR SHANTILAL JANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

40a(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,52,650/-. In respect of the said additions, the Assessing Officer initiated penal proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued on 27.03.2015. The assessee has not filed any submissions before the Assessing Officer and, therefore

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.

7, the Notification imposes other conditions as well, which the Ld. AO was not able to verify because the Notification was issued after completion of assessment. The Ld. DR further submitted that even the Ld. CIT(A) has also not verified whether or not all conditions were satisfied by the assessee. Hence the Ld. DR prayed that the matter should

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.

7, the Notification imposes other conditions as well, which the Ld. AO was not able to verify because the Notification was issued after completion of assessment. The Ld. DR further submitted that even the Ld. CIT(A) has also not verified whether or not all conditions were satisfied by the assessee. Hence the Ld. DR prayed that the matter should