ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, these grounds of assessee’s appeal are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 801..of the Income Tax Act…” Taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter, the case made out by the assessee, the documents in support of such claim on record before us and respectfully relying on the ratio laid down on this issue of allowability of supervision charges by the Jurisdiction High Court, we find no alternative

THE DCIT(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal ITA 2693/Ahd/2014, ITA 305/Ahd/2015, cross objection 01/Ahd/2015 & 41/Ahd/2015 all are dismissed

TDS has not been deducted was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the act. 4. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee stating that commission paid to non-resident agent was not liable to tax under

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal ITA 2693/Ahd/2014, ITA 305/Ahd/2015, cross objection 01/Ahd/2015 & 41/Ahd/2015 all are dismissed

TDS has not been deducted was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the act. 4. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee stating that commission paid to non-resident agent was not liable to tax under

SHRI PRAFUL D. THAKKAR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble&Smt. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं.Ita No. 2026/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Sushilaben Prafulbhai Vs. Ito Thakkar, Ward-2(2) L/H Of Late Prafulbhai D. Ahmedabad. Thakkar, 40, Lad Society, B/H Akash Tower, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad- 380054

801/- was made by the Ld. AO with the following breakup " Labour expenses : Rs. 10,31,090/- " Advertisement expenses : Rs. 20,800/- " Interest expenses : Rs. 91,888/- Rs. 10,43,778/-. The same was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) with the following observation:- “It is seen that the appellant had claimed Rs. 10,31,090/- under the head

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1075-1076/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2009-2010 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T. Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd., Circle-2(1)(1), G-5,Pariseema Complex, Vs. Ahmedabad-380015 Nr. Swagat Cross Roads, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacg6992L

section 143(3) of the Act. ITA nos.1075 & 1076/AHD/2016 Asstt. Years 2009-10 & 2012-13 9 16.9 On perusal of the ledgers of the laborers we note that the payment was made by the assessee periodically after the deduction of TDS. Thus, the assessee cannot be penalized if the laborers have raised the bills at the end of the accounting

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. MRS. CRYOGAS EQUIPOMNET PVT. LTD.,, VADODARA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS is not applicable; the assessee remitted the forex which in turn were the business transaction required. Such contention of the assessee was not found suitable by the Learned AO. The Learned AO was of the view that ITA Nos.1228 & 2025/Ahd/2017 The DCIT/ACIT vs. M/s. Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Years –2012-13 & 2013-14 in view of the provision

AESHA ASHISHBHAI SHAH LEGAL HEIR AND WIFE OF LATE ASHISH SUMATIBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1) PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 143(3) on 19.02.2016 determining total income at Rs. 66,15,560/-. Additions were made on account of interest u/s 244A, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), disallowance of bad debts and addition u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee’s appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on 24.10.2017. The matter then travelled to the Tribunal. Vide order

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI VIPINBHAI SOMABHAI PUJARA, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

TDS u/s 194A from payments aggregating to Rs.1,63,64,831/- and thereby confirming that the provisions of section 40(a){ia) were attracted. 2.3 That in facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not restricting the disallowance at 30% though it was settled position by way of amendment of Finance Act, 2014. 2.4 Without prejudice

SHRI VIPINBHAI SOMABHAI PUJARA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2009-10

TDS u/s 194A from payments aggregating to Rs.1,63,64,831/- and thereby confirming that the provisions of section 40(a){ia) were attracted. 2.3 That in facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not restricting the disallowance at 30% though it was settled position by way of amendment of Finance Act, 2014. 2.4 Without prejudice

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

801-804, 8th Floor, Abhishree Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN No. AABCE9421H PAN No. AABCA2916K 5. 446/Ahd/2016 2012-13 DCIT Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Circle-1(3) (on behalf of Ahmedabad amalgamating Company M/s.Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) PAN: AABCA 9956 F Assessee(s)by : Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR Revenue by : Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

801-804, 8th Floor, Abhishree Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN No. AABCE9421H PAN No. AABCA2916K 5. 446/Ahd/2016 2012-13 DCIT Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Circle-1(3) (on behalf of Ahmedabad amalgamating Company M/s.Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) PAN: AABCA 9956 F Assessee(s)by : Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR Revenue by : Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

801-804, 8th Floor, Abhishree Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN No. AABCE9421H PAN No. AABCA2916K 5. 446/Ahd/2016 2012-13 DCIT Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Circle-1(3) (on behalf of Ahmedabad amalgamating Company M/s.Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) PAN: AABCA 9956 F Assessee(s)by : Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR Revenue by : Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VIJAY M. MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

801 A (4) of the Act cannot be allowed and the ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 14. At this juncture, therefore, deliberation is required on the main issue as to whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under section 80IA(4) of the Act even after the Explanation inserted after sub-section 13 of section 80IA

VIJAY M.MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

801 A (4) of the Act cannot be allowed and the ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 14. At this juncture, therefore, deliberation is required on the main issue as to whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under section 80IA(4) of the Act even after the Explanation inserted after sub-section 13 of section 80IA

ALTERA DIGITAL HEALTH (INDIA) LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) LLP),VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

801 Commissioner of Atlantis Heights, Income Tax, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Circle-1(1)(1), Road, Vadodara Vadodara, Gujarat Subhanpura, Vadodara-390023, Gujarat, India PAN: ABHFA9124B (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Ms. Chandni Shah & Ms. Riddhi Maru,& Ms.Tejal Saraf ARs. Revenue Represented: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 09-10-2025 Date of pronouncement : 15-10-2025 आदेश/ORDER

SHREE SARAS SPICES & FOODS P. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 478/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015

TDS. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal. 3. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,44,07,768/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE SARAS SPICES & FOOD PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 478/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Shree Saras Spices & Foods Pvt. I.T.O., Ltd., Vs. Ward-4(1)(3), A/3, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad. Casela Tower,, Opp. Iscon Mandir, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad-380015

TDS. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal. 3. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,44,07,768/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

TDS u/s 40(a)(ia). 2.3 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Assessing Officer / DRP ought to have appreciated that since the payments had already been made during the year under consideration and nothing was payable as at the end of the relevant year, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act were not applicable and consequently