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

viii) Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act 60,517/-. 2.1. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee as Rs.7,45,63,504/- as against the returned loss and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the assessee’s appeal and partly

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

viii) Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act 60,517/-. 2.1. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee as Rs.7,45,63,504/- as against the returned loss and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the assessee’s appeal and partly

THE BAVLA GROUP SEVA SAHAKAR MANDALI LTD,BAVLA, AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(5), AHMEDABAD, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case is also not possible to accept

DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. THE SARDAR PAEL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case is also not possible to accept

SOHAMNAGAR CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY VIBHAG-III,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case is also not possible to accept

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

Bench: Us.

56,17,547/-. He directed the assessee to explain as to why this commission be not disallowed. In response to the query of the AO, the assessee filed a detailed written submissions which was identically submitted before the ld.CIT(A), and we will be going to take note of the submission in the subsequent part. The AO has gone through

CHANDRAKANT GORDHANBHAI PATEL HUF ,DABHOI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3), VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: The Final Hearing Of This Appeal Petition…”

section 56(2)(viii) of the Act, 1961. The appellant fails to furnish any decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court on this issue. The addition made by the AO is confirmed and the ground taken by the appellant is dismissed. 5. Aggrieved , the assessee has now filed an appeal with the Tribunal . The assessee has filed Paper Book containing

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

TDS certificate issued by the Executive Engineer. The assessee has raised RA bills, contractor & construction work bills for the activities undertaken by it at the part rate as agreed by in the tender and work contract & collected the payment for the same. g. The receipt of payment u/s.194C itself clearly indicates that the assessee company has acted as a contractor

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

TDS certificate issued by the Executive Engineer. The assessee has raised RA bills, contractor & construction work bills for the activities undertaken by it at the part rate as agreed by in the tender and work contract & collected the payment for the same. g. The receipt of payment u/s.194C itself clearly indicates that the assessee company has acted as a contractor

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

TDS certificate issued by the Executive Engineer. The assessee has raised RA bills, contractor & construction work bills for the activities undertaken by it at the part rate as agreed by in the tender and work contract & collected the payment for the same. g. The receipt of payment u/s.194C itself clearly indicates that the assessee company has acted as a contractor

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

viii) Travelling expenses (including foreign travelling) Rs.2485004 Rs.7491607 39. However, the assessee expressed its inability to produce the supporting evidences on the reasoning that all the necessary documents have been seized by the VAT department. Nevertheless, the AO was of the view that VAT department has nothing to do with the indirect expenses incurred by the assessee. According

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

viii) Travelling expenses (including foreign travelling) Rs.2485004 Rs.7491607 39. However, the assessee expressed its inability to produce the supporting evidences on the reasoning that all the necessary documents have been seized by the VAT department. Nevertheless, the AO was of the view that VAT department has nothing to do with the indirect expenses incurred by the assessee. According

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

viii) Travelling expenses (including foreign travelling) Rs.2485004 Rs.7491607 39. However, the assessee expressed its inability to produce the supporting evidences on the reasoning that all the necessary documents have been seized by the VAT department. Nevertheless, the AO was of the view that VAT department has nothing to do with the indirect expenses incurred by the assessee. According

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

viii) Travelling expenses (including foreign travelling) Rs.2485004 Rs.7491607 39. However, the assessee expressed its inability to produce the supporting evidences on the reasoning that all the necessary documents have been seized by the VAT department. Nevertheless, the AO was of the view that VAT department has nothing to do with the indirect expenses incurred by the assessee. According

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 311/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 2. 2176/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 3. 2173/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 4. 165/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 5. 287/Ahd/2017 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 6-7 520 & 2013-14 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., 521/Ahd/2018 & Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 8-9 604 & 605/ 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Ahd/2018 & Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K

viii) Position of law upto A.Y. 2007-08 and post A.Y. 2008-09 (Rule 8D] cannot be different as to charge of tax u/s i 4A r.w.s. 4. 1.3 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming that Rule 8D is mandatory or automatic with no scope for variation, holding that Rule 8D, though subordinate or machinery provision, could

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

56,881/-, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee claimed credit of tax deducted at source of Rs. 12,87,64,272/- in the return of income, which is also reflected in Form 26AS for the year under consideration, but the same was not fully granted. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that adequate TDS credit should be granted as reflecting

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

56,881/-, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee claimed credit of tax deducted at source of Rs. 12,87,64,272/- in the return of income, which is also reflected in Form 26AS for the year under consideration, but the same was not fully granted. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that adequate TDS credit should be granted as reflecting

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

56,881/-, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee claimed credit of tax deducted at source of Rs. 12,87,64,272/- in the return of income, which is also reflected in Form 26AS for the year under consideration, but the same was not fully granted. Thus, the Ld. AR prayed that adequate TDS credit should be granted as reflecting