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

54,06,503/- in part under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS

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 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

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 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

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

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

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2970/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T., M/S Deloitee Haskins & Sells, Circle-1(2), Vs. 31-Nutan Bharat Society, Vadodara. Alkapuri, Baroda.

54,57,460/- 1,09,149/- 37,01,111/- NIL Hotel 3. ITC 13,21,195/- 5,93,567/- 11,556/- 7,39,185/- NIL Grand Total 1,19,90,581/- 60,51,027/- 1,20,705/- 59,51,111/- 11.1 As per the AO the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s 194-I of the Act with respect

JAYVANTKUMAR RAMANLAL CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-19

TDS. The assessee deposited complete proceeds into capital gains account with Bank of Baroda on 31.03.2018 and since the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 54F of the Act, the assessee’s claim was acceptable and deduction under Section 54

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

54,602/- u/s 35(i)(iv) of the Act ignoring fact that appellant is eligible for the same. Tax Effect: Rs. 34,90,334/- 4. Ld. AO / DRP erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.3,99,455/- of testing charges u/s 195 for non-deduction of TDS by invoking Explanation 2 to Section

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2503/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Dcit, M/S. Gujarat Microwax बनाम/ Cir – 2(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ahmedabad. 401 & 02, Sarthik Square, Sarkhej Gandhinagar Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 5593 P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. Jayant Jhveri, Sr.D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.C. Pipara, C.A.

54,06,265 34,29,381 24,12,765 23,66,747 12,84,816 1,48,99,974 commission to foreign agent (wherein no TDS has been made) 2.12. The appellant has relied upon various judgements of Hon'ble Courts and on the identical facts it was held that no TDS u/s.195 is warranted when the commission income

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

54,82,415/- under Section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D. Since the assessee had suo motto disallowed Rs.2,82,07,492/- in the computation of income, the AO had made addition of differential amount of Rs.72,74,923/- only in the assessment order. As already discussed earlier in Ground No.12, the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

54,82,415/- under Section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D. Since the assessee had suo motto disallowed Rs.2,82,07,492/- in the computation of income, the AO had made addition of differential amount of Rs.72,74,923/- only in the assessment order. As already discussed earlier in Ground No.12, the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted

SHRI SAMIR CHANDRAVADAB BHALAVAT,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SABARKANTHA WARD-4,, MODASA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS under section 194C of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. The 2nd issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO for Rs. 7,16,466/- representing the amount of interest on the amount advanced as interest-free advance & loans

SHRI CHAITANYA BANSIBHAI. NAGORI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

TDS @ 1%. This was nothing but a clerical error of the concerned person of Aqua Infrastructures. The original purchase agreement dated 02.05.2014 exhibits the reference of booking letter dated 07.07.2010 at page 7 of the said agreement. vi) It has been further contended that no payments have been made from the O.D. bank account no. 474 maintained with Bank

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

TDS under Section 194-I to the parties concerned. Further, the Assessee during the reassessment proceedings has filed confirmation of accounts, ITRs of the unsecured creditors with bank statements, ledger accounts, etc. However, the lower authorities have not accepted the unsecured loans, holding the same as not genuine, thereby making addition of the unsecured loans as well as the interest