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

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

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 194-I was deducted only on payment of Rs.6,00,000/-.\n\n9. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated the issue to have been adjudicated during the assessment proceedings. In this regard, he drew our attention to the reply filed to the ld.Pr.CIT placed before us\n\nat PB Page No.598 and 599, the contents of which are reproduced

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.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

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

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

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

SHRI VISHAL D PALANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, TDS-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54,400/- has obligated by the provisions of section 194 C of the Act. Accordingly, this sum was disallowed as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and consequently appellant was held to be assessee-in-default by the impugned order u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act and tax liability

SHRI VISHAL DILIP PALANY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Vishal Dilip Palani, Income Tax Officer, C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, Vs Ward 9(4), 903, Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Alopp 0931 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xv, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 04.02.2013. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Giving Details Of The Deteriorating Health Of His Father As Well As Financial Problems Faced During The Relevant Period Which Resulted In The Said Delay. Keeping In View The Same, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Learned Departmental Representative Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. We, Therefore, Shri Vishal Dilip Palani Vs. Ito Ay : 2009-10 2

TDS Shri Vishal Dilip Palani Vs. ITO AY : 2009-10 8 out of it. The audited P&L account reflect freight receipt of Rs.2,81,54,400 and commission income of Rs.9,62,500. It is therefore a huge sum of Rs.65,40,056 (2,81,54,400-2,16,14,344) was received by appellant. Considering the nature

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

TDS credit claimed Rs.2,400/- under Rs.2,400/- under section 194-IA section 194-IA 9 Refund granted or Denied – ITR filed Denied – ITR filed denied late late 3.5 Subsequently, the PCIT, examined the assessment record under section 263 of the Act and found that the assessment order dated 06.03.2023 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

BINITABEN SANDIPKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

TDS credit claimed Rs.2,400/- under Rs.2,400/- under section 194-IA section 194-IA 9 Refund granted or Denied – ITR filed Denied – ITR filed denied late late 3.5 Subsequently, the PCIT, examined the assessment record under section 263 of the Act and found that the assessment order dated 06.03.2023 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

ELECON EPC CO. LTD.,(MERGED WITH ELECON ENGINEERING CO. LTD),VALLABH VIDHYANAGAR vs. PR. CIT-2,, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals field by the Assessee are allowed

54,24,12,811- 24,86,42,464) received by you, on account of transfer from Emtici Engineering Ltd., and transferred to Elecon EPC Project Ltd., you had offered income of Rs.25,19,38,366/- for taxation and claimed entire TDS credit of Rs. 1,69,11,965/-(3,28,13,759 - 1,59,01,794) thereon, in your return

ELECON ENGINEERING CO. LTD.,,VALLABH VIDHYANAGAR vs. PR. CIT-2,, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals field by the Assessee are allowed

54,24,12,811- 24,86,42,464) received by you, on account of transfer from Emtici Engineering Ltd., and transferred to Elecon EPC Project Ltd., you had offered income of Rs.25,19,38,366/- for taxation and claimed entire TDS credit of Rs. 1,69,11,965/-(3,28,13,759 - 1,59,01,794) thereon, in your return

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

THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI YAGNESH DAYABHAI VYAS, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. The brief facts leading to the issue is this the assessee had made interest payment to Citi Finance for Rs. 7,96,995/- and Rs. 27,54,253/- to Gruh Finance, on which no TDS