IMNU STUDENT ACTIVITY ASSOCIATION,AHMEDAABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

86,110/-. Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was passed on 12.01.2024 determining total income at Rs. NIL and the refund of the assessee was determined at Rs. 1,56,200/-. The credit of TDS

NAM GROUP ASLALI,AHMEDABAD vs. AO, CPC, BANGALORE-PRESENT -THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical

TDS being made in the name of Co- ownership in which shares of co-owners are specific. 3. He has erred in law and on facts in applying provision of section 86

NAM GROUP ASLALI,AHMEDABAD vs. AO,CPC, BANGALORE- PRESENT ITO. WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical

TDS being made in the name of Co- ownership in which shares of co-owners are specific. 3. He has erred in law and on facts in applying provision of section 86

THE DY.CIT (INT.-TAXA.)-1, , AHMEDABAD vs. ZYDUS LIFSCIENCE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act holding that it is covered by exception as the services were used for the purpose of business of the assessee being carried out outside India, completely ignoring the fact that the source of the revenue being in Thailand will not make the business of the assessee being carried out from Thailand

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

section 133(6) was duly complied with where Seema Holding confirmed the investment made in assessee share capital which was further confirmed by furnishing the notarized affidavit. From the submission of the assessee, we also find that the investor company for the year under consideration has shown interest income of Rs. 86,89,155/- on which TDS

M/S. HAATHEE VENTURES,,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, ground number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

86,428/-. During the course of assessment, the AO was of the view that substantial work has been executed and hence the revenue have to be recognised as per AS-7. Considering 20% profit margin on projected cost, the AO worked out the net profit at " 2,65,07,865/-. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) partly allowed assessee

BHAVESH K SHAH,AKOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), ALKAPURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 44AD of the Act, declaring gross receipts of ₹92,54,031/- and taxable income of ₹6,88,570/-. The Assessing Officer, during reassessment proceedings, observed that the assessee had purchased a property for ₹1.35 crore, out of which a sum of ₹1,04,86,000/- (including TDS

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India