DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 2(15) is not applicable to the instant case of the assessee.Neither Sudarshan Kriya falls within the residuary category of ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’. 8.6 It is also a fact that donations have been received which has shown as voluntary contribution including the contributions from the corporate who are benefited out of these programs for their own staff

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

8. Reduction of claim u/s 80IC - Rs. 48,95,15,652/- 8.1 This ground relates to the deletion of addition by the Ld. CIT(A) of Rs.48,95,15,652/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of reduction of claim u/s 80IC of the Act. In this regard, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed

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

8. Reduction of claim u/s 80IC - Rs. 48,95,15,652/- 8.1 This ground relates to the deletion of addition by the Ld. CIT(A) of Rs.48,95,15,652/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of reduction of claim u/s 80IC of the Act. In this regard, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271C and 272A(2)(g) of the Act. The violation stated to be committed by the assessee for attracting the levy of penalty of the impugned penalties are – ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 8 (i) 271C of the Act- for not depositing the TDS

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271C and 272A(2)(g) of the Act. The violation stated to be committed by the assessee for attracting the levy of penalty of the impugned penalties are – ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 8 (i) 271C of the Act- for not depositing the TDS

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271C and 272A(2)(g) of the Act. The violation stated to be committed by the assessee for attracting the levy of penalty of the impugned penalties are – ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 8 (i) 271C of the Act- for not depositing the TDS

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271C and 272A(2)(g) of the Act. The violation stated to be committed by the assessee for attracting the levy of penalty of the impugned penalties are – ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 8 (i) 271C of the Act- for not depositing the TDS

AARK INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in issuing a notice u/s 143(2

THE DCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P.INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 2(22)(e) would not apply. Apart from that there is no finding by the Ld. AO that common directors have withdrawn any amount from the recipient company for their personal benefit. 8. It is an undisputed fact that loan has been advanced by the appellant company to six group company which are not shareholder of the appellant company

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. J.P. ISCON LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P. INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 2(22)(e) would not apply. Apart from that there is no finding by the Ld. AO that common directors have withdrawn any amount from the recipient company for their personal benefit. 8. It is an undisputed fact that loan has been advanced by the appellant company to six group company which are not shareholder of the appellant company

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. MARKET CREATORS LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

TDS provisions. 7. In parity with view taken in Co-ordinate Bench, we hold that assessee company was not liable for deduction of tax u/s. 194H or 194J on payment of brokerage to the sub-brokers and accordingly we hold that no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) was called for. Thus, this ground of Revenue is dismissed. 8

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

8. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

8. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LAMDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

8. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

8. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section

LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) (2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

8. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LAMBDA THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

8. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 40a(ia) r.w.s 195 of the IT Act on account of non-deduction of TDS on payment ,of Rs 19,86,207/- made on account of consultancy fees to tax residents of USA & Canada without appreciating that such incomes were taxable in India in terms of Section