DCIT(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. DEENDAYAL PORT AUTHORITY, GANDHIDHAM

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.881/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20

96,022/-, whereas TDS credit of only Rs.165,66,37,908/- was granted as per the rectification order under Section

CHIRAG MAHENDRABHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). By this intimation the CPC Centre has gives TDS credit of Rs. 62,721/- only and raised a tax demand of Rs. 2,46,857/-. The grievances of the assessee is that the entire TDS amount of Rs. 2,96

SUZLON GUJARAT WIND PARK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above\nterms

TDS credit of ₹1,11,297/- was allowed by the\nDepartment, and refund was accordingly issued vide rectification order\nunder section 154 dated 22.07.2020. The refund and interest granted under\nsection 244A totalled to ₹11,81,47,067/-, comprising refund of\n₹10,93,89,770/- and interest of ₹87,57,297/-. The refunds were received on\n01.10.2018

GUJARAT APOLLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year : 2014-15 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd. Ahmedabad. ‘Apollo House’ Rashmi Society Nr.Mithakhali Six Roads Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacg 7248 P

section 195(2) of the Act, which casts upon the assessee a duty to seek opinion or direction from the AO to determine the appropriate rate of TDS by the deductor. The assessee having failed to discharge his obligation, the ld.AO disallowed the impugned commission expenses of Rs.18,84,793/- and added the same to the total income

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

96,246/ and for AY 2017- 18 the company has shown loss of Rs. 13,99,799/- whereas it is claimed to have provided unsecured loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to assessee during the year under consideration. Similarly, in the case of ANR Finance Limited, the P&L account of the ANR Finance

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

96,246/ and for AY 2017- 18 the company has shown loss of Rs. 13,99,799/- whereas it is claimed to have provided unsecured loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to assessee during the year under consideration. Similarly, in the case of ANR Finance Limited, the P&L account of the ANR Finance

CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

96,075/- was made by the assessee. There is no dispute that if the assets were not capitalized to block of assets, the assessee is entitled for separate claim of depreciation on these assets which should be worked out on the reduced WDV for this year. The AO should carry out the verifications as directed above and should allow

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

96,075/- was made by the assessee. There is no dispute that if the assets were not capitalized to block of assets, the assessee is entitled for separate claim of depreciation on these assets which should be worked out on the reduced WDV for this year. The AO should carry out the verifications as directed above and should allow

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

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

TDS on delayed payment charges (viii) Disallowance on upgradation of software expenses (ix) Charging of interest under section 234B on book Profits u/s. 115JB (x) Loss due to foreign exchange difference rate 7. As the first five issues are being covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 3003/Ahd/2010 & ors. relating to A.Ys. 2003- 04 & ors., dated

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

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

TDS on delayed payment charges (viii) Disallowance on upgradation of software expenses (ix) Charging of interest under section 234B on book Profits u/s. 115JB (x) Loss due to foreign exchange difference rate 7. As the first five issues are being covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 3003/Ahd/2010 & ors. relating to A.Ys. 2003- 04 & ors., dated

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

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

TDS on delayed payment charges (viii) Disallowance on upgradation of software expenses (ix) Charging of interest under section 234B on book Profits u/s. 115JB (x) Loss due to foreign exchange difference rate 7. As the first five issues are being covered in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 3003/Ahd/2010 & ors. relating to A.Ys. 2003- 04 & ors., dated

THE JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ELECTROTHERM (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS form such payment vvili attract section 195 of the Act and consequent disallowance under section 40ia)(i) will be sustained This ground is thus disposed off accordingly. 34. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.1193/Ahd/2019 & 1284/Ahd/2019 Electrotherm (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT & JCIT(OSD) vs. Electrotherm (India

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

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS form such payment vvili attract section 195 of the Act and consequent disallowance under section 40ia)(i) will be sustained This ground is thus disposed off accordingly. 34. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before us. ITA Nos.1193/Ahd/2019 & 1284/Ahd/2019 Electrotherm (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT & JCIT(OSD) vs. Electrotherm (India

JANKI WIND FARM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

96,025/-. Subsequently, it filed\na revised return in response to notice u/s 139(9), declaring total income of\nRs.3,73,79,914/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and intimation was\nissued accordingly. Thereafter, the assessee filed a rectification application\nunder section 154 on 17.11.2021 pointing out two mistakes apparent from\nrecord:\ni. That TDS

ARCHIT CORPORATION,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3),, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 683/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Archit Corporation Llp, I.T.O., (Earlier Known As Archit Corporation) Vs. Ward-2(3), 54, Ganesh Krupa, Bhavnagar. Vijayraj Nagar, Bhavnagar.

TDS from payments to resident payees not to be deemed as Assessee in Default if no loss to revenue results due to short deduction/non-deduction-i.e. (A) Payee has included the impugned amount, on which tax was not deducted/short deducted, in his return of income filed under section 139 and pays taxes due on returned income and (B) Payer produces a certificate

NILESH AMRITLAL PARIKH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1)(PREVIOUSLY ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271(1)(c) for concealing particulars of income were also initiated. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “5. DECISION 5.1. The main ground of appeal is the addition of Rs. 15,01,822/- made on account of undisclosed receipt which was the difference between the sales amount recorded

THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI YAGNESH DAYABHAI VYAS, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. The brief facts leading to the issue is this the assessee had made interest payment to Citi Finance for Rs. 7,96,995/- and Rs. 27,54,253/- to Gruh Finance, on which no TDS

UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

TDS of Rs.13,11,100/- and interest under section 234B of Rs.1,01,36,645/- were also disputed by the assessee. Claim for deduction of education cess of Rs.12,63,048/- under section 37(1) was also made by the assessee, relying on judicial precedents. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. In so doing