THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

801A(4) on this basis. The other objections would be dealt separately, in subsequent paragraphs. 5.2.2 The major objection of the AO is that the company has merely entered into contract agreements and acted as a contractor. He has observed that TDS has been deducted u/s 194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

801A(4) on this basis. The other objections would be dealt separately, in subsequent paragraphs. 5.2.2 The major objection of the AO is that the company has merely entered into contract agreements and acted as a contractor. He has observed that TDS has been deducted u/s 194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

801A(4) on this basis. The other objections would be dealt separately, in subsequent paragraphs. 5.2.2 The major objection of the AO is that the company has merely entered into contract agreements and acted as a contractor. He has observed that TDS has been deducted u/s 194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGG. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

801A(4) on this basis. The other objections would be dealt separately, in subsequent paragraphs. 5.2.2 The major objection of the AO is that the company has merely entered into contract agreements and acted as a contractor. He has observed that TDS has been deducted u/s 194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner

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)

801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 Without calling for data the learned AO erred in holding that there is mechanical apportionment of expenses & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that the actual expenses are charged to each well and I.T.A Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022

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)

801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 Without calling for data the learned AO erred in holding that there is mechanical apportionment of expenses & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that the actual expenses are charged to each well and I.T.A Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022

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)

801A(10) even though the same are not applicable. It is submitted it be so held now. 2.6 Without calling for data the learned AO erred in holding that there is mechanical apportionment of expenses & no actual expenses are accounted on wells. It is submitted that the actual expenses are charged to each well and I.T.A Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022

DCIT CC- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED, MONTECARLO HOUSE, SINDHU BHAWA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

TDS was not deducted u/s. 194C of the Act. The assessee submitted that it made loss in the above project, therefore, the Assessing Officer invoking section 40(a)(ia) made a disallowance of Rs. 3,98,872/- and added in the income of the assessee. On appeal, the assessee submitted the above disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) would increase the quantum

DCIT CC- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED , SINDHU BHAWAN ROAD, BODAKDEV

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

TDS was not deducted u/s. 194C of the Act. The assessee submitted that it made loss in the above project, therefore, the Assessing Officer invoking section 40(a)(ia) made a disallowance of Rs. 3,98,872/- and added in the income of the assessee. On appeal, the assessee submitted the above disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) would increase the quantum

M/S. DRAIPAL-MSKEL (JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

801A(13) with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000 which reads as under: "Explanation- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a business referred to in sub-section (4) which is in the nature of a works contract awarded by any person (including the Central or State Government

M/S. DRAIPL-MSKEL(JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

801A(13) with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000 which reads as under: "Explanation- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a business referred to in sub-section (4) which is in the nature of a works contract awarded by any person (including the Central or State Government

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

section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee

GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are partly

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

801A for ten consecutive years beginning from the year in respect of which he has exercised such option subject to the fulfillment of conditions prescribed in the section. Hence, the term 'initial assessment year' would mean the first year opted for by the assessee for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. However, the total number of years for claiming

GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are partly

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

801A for ten consecutive years beginning from the year in respect of which he has exercised such option subject to the fulfillment of conditions prescribed in the section. Hence, the term 'initial assessment year' would mean the first year opted for by the assessee for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. However, the total number of years for claiming

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

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

section 80IA(4) as a developer. The assessee submitted that it has derived profits from an undertaking in respect of infrastructural activities being road development of Airport terminal Plant, Canal Syphone Work, Diaphram Wall and development of Airport terminal etc., with State or Central Government. The assessee submitted that the work carried out by the assessee is in the nature

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

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

section 80IA(4) as a developer. The assessee submitted that it has derived profits from an undertaking in respect of infrastructural activities being road development of Airport terminal Plant, Canal Syphone Work, Diaphram Wall and development of Airport terminal etc., with State or Central Government. The assessee submitted that the work carried out by the assessee is in the nature

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

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

section 80IA(4) as a developer. The assessee submitted that it has derived profits from an undertaking in respect of infrastructural activities being road development of Airport terminal Plant, Canal Syphone Work, Diaphram Wall and development of Airport terminal etc., with State or Central Government. The assessee submitted that the work carried out by the assessee is in the nature

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

PG FOILS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

801A of Rs.37,90,084/- claimed by appellant. 3. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 1,04,64,559/- by invoking Sec. 14A of the Act. 4. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not allowing credit of TDS