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

47,75,048 (share capital of Rs.9,05,15,220plus free reserves of Rs. 128,42,59,828) for the year ended 31 March 2011. As against these owned funds, investment yielding exempt income amounted to only Rs.37,54,06,040. • That RBHIL had generated net cash from its operating activities amounting to Rs. 104,15,44,432 whereas additional

SHREE HARI ENTERPRISE ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nfollowing terms:\n\ni) Issue No

section 194J of the Act, which was noted\nby the ld.Pr.CIT to have been deducted on payment of\nRs.17,34,150/- only.\n\n17. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee before the\nld.Pr.CIT in this regard are reproduced hereunder:\n\n“Issue 2: Assessee firm has made payments towards professional and\ntechnical services of Rs.22

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. TARUN SANTRAMDAS VARMA, AHMEDABAD

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

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

TDS u/s 194IA on the said transactions. Also I agree that in case of in case of RS No. 414 at Village Sargasan the purchase consideration wherein to Shri Chehuji Shibuji (confirming party for transaction stated at Sr.no5) an amount of Rs.5700000/- was paid, However the amount paid to the confirming party is outside the purview of section 194IA

JIVANBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,UNJHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

47,511/- claimed by the assessee in his return of income. 4. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. There is a delay of 204 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed condonation of delay along with Affidavit. The reasons stated

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

Bench: Us.

47,7457- respectively is not allowed for the reasons discussed in the aforesaid appellate order as the same cannot be said to be direct or indirect income from the business activities being derived out of manufacturing activities. Thus, the aforesaid two incomes are not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC of the I. T. Act, 1961 and the disallowance

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

TDS on International Transaction 54,000/- (v) Disallowance u/s. 50C of the Act 6,71,29,538/- (vi) Disallowance on account of Excess Depreciation 4,58,137/- Claimed on Software Licenses (vii) Capitalization of Interest on Capital Work in Progress 47,37,168/- (viii) Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act 60,517/-. 2.1. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined

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

TDS on International Transaction 54,000/- (v) Disallowance u/s. 50C of the Act 6,71,29,538/- (vi) Disallowance on account of Excess Depreciation 4,58,137/- Claimed on Software Licenses (vii) Capitalization of Interest on Capital Work in Progress 47,37,168/- (viii) Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act 60,517/-. 2.1. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

TDS u/s 195 nor the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is attracted. Regarding genuineness of commission-payment, we observe that the assessee has given sufficient documentary evidences to prove the services of Page 41 of 51 ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. agents and payment of commission. It is also observed that

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

TDS u/s 195 nor the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is attracted. Regarding genuineness of commission-payment, we observe that the assessee has given sufficient documentary evidences to prove the services of Page 41 of 51 ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. agents and payment of commission. It is also observed that

THE DY.CIT (INT.-TAXA.)-1, , AHMEDABAD vs. ZYDUS LIFSCIENCE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act holding that it is covered by exception as the services were used for the purpose of business of the assessee being carried out outside India, completely ignoring the fact that the source of the revenue being in Thailand will not make the business of the assessee being carried out from Thailand

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

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 865/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Intas The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Income Tax Vs. Plot 423/P/A, Sarkhej Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Bavla Highway, Moraiya, Sanand, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382213 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci4722M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shah, Ars. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr & Shri Ashish Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 20.01.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. Ita No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Dcit] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 –

47,701/- in respect of commission paid to non-residents under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO found that no TDS

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS on the amount of rent under the provisions of section 194 I of the Act. Therefore, as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the same cannot be allowed as deduction as business expenses. In this connection we find that, there was the proviso attached to section 40(a)(ia) vide finance Act 2012, which

ARCHIT CORPORATION,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3),, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 683/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Archit Corporation Llp, I.T.O., (Earlier Known As Archit Corporation) Vs. Ward-2(3), 54, Ganesh Krupa, Bhavnagar. Vijayraj Nagar, Bhavnagar.

TDS from payments to resident payees not to be deemed as Assessee in Default if no loss to revenue results due to short deduction/non-deduction-i.e. (A) Payee has included the impugned amount, on which tax was not deducted/short deducted, in his return of income filed under section 139 and pays taxes due on returned income and (B) Payer produces a certificate

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(1) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. SONABEN ANILKUMAR VARIYA, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ito, Ward-3(2)(1) Sonaben Anilkumar Variya Ahmedabad. Arhum Elegans Aec Cross Road City Naranpura Vistar So Ahmedabad. Pan : Amwpv 5380 Q (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09 /10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

TDS on such Banakhat amounts, the same did not render the transactions taxable since no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

47,160/-. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 18-6-2015, as a consequence to which it was found that the assessee firm had shown payments to various sub- contractors (" 1,86,97,354/- for assessment year 2009-10). The statement of the sub-contractors were recorded, on the basis of which the AO concluded

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

47,160/-. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 18-6-2015, as a consequence to which it was found that the assessee firm had shown payments to various sub- contractors (" 1,86,97,354/- for assessment year 2009-10). The statement of the sub-contractors were recorded, on the basis of which the AO concluded

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

47,160/-. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 18-6-2015, as a consequence to which it was found that the assessee firm had shown payments to various sub- contractors (" 1,86,97,354/- for assessment year 2009-10). The statement of the sub-contractors were recorded, on the basis of which the AO concluded

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

47,160/-. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted on 18-6-2015, as a consequence to which it was found that the assessee firm had shown payments to various sub- contractors (" 1,86,97,354/- for assessment year 2009-10). The statement of the sub-contractors were recorded, on the basis of which the AO concluded