SHRI VISHAL DILIP PALANY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Vishal Dilip Palani, Income Tax Officer, C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, Vs Ward 9(4), 903, Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Alopp 0931 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xv, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 04.02.2013. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Giving Details Of The Deteriorating Health Of His Father As Well As Financial Problems Faced During The Relevant Period Which Resulted In The Said Delay. Keeping In View The Same, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Learned Departmental Representative Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. We, Therefore, Shri Vishal Dilip Palani Vs. Ito Ay : 2009-10 2

194C(1) for payments made to the outside parties and consequently the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) by the authorities below are deleted. The appellant thus gets relief of Rs.56,03,210/-.” 7. We also adopt the same reasoning to conclude that both the lower authorities have erred in making the impugned Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance on the freight

SHRI SAMIR CHANDRAVADAB BHALAVAT,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SABARKANTHA WARD-4,, MODASA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

194C of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. The 2nd issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO for Rs. 7,16,466/- representing the amount of interest on the amount advanced as interest-free advance & loans. 7.1 The assessee

CRYSTAL QUINONE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1420/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cir-1(1)(2), Opp. Old Excise Chawky, Vs. Ahmedabad S.M. Road, Ahmedabad

194C(3)(i) for the purposes of invoking section 40(a)(ia), it is found that only second proviso to it is sufficient to decide whether tax was deductible or not. Time factors involved for compliance of the conditions mentioned in two provisions are different. Second proviso is to be complied with at the time of making payment

SAGAR POWERTEX PVT. LTD. (EARLIER SAGAR AGENCIES PVT.LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.304/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Sagar Powertex Pvt. Ltd., J.C.I.T., (Earlier Sagar Agencies Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Range-8, 803, Sahajanand Complex, Ahmedabad. Shahibaug Road, Shahiibaug Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aadcs0473P

depreciation thereon. This ground of the Revenue is accordingly rejected. " 12.2 Likewise the expenses incurred by the assessee with respect to insurance and interest expenses in connection with such motor car, are also eligible for deduction under the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act. It is also important to note in respect of other expenses of fuel

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAJAJ HERBALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation of Rs. 2,11,723/- by deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO. So far as the expenses of the Rs. 39,663/- claimed on the running of the vehicle is concerned, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied so as to the claim made by the assessee by demonstrating that the whole expenses

BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

194C of the Act, and the Assessee’s inability to demonstrate compliance, that the facts of the assessee’s case warranted disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer observed that section 40(a)(ia) of the Act disallows ITA No. 931/Ahd/2015 & 448/Ahd/2016 Hagglunds Drives (India) Pvt. Ltd./ Bosch Rexroth (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

HAGGLUNDS DRIVES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ( NOW MERGED IN BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) LTD.),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

194C of the Act, and the Assessee’s inability to demonstrate compliance, that the facts of the assessee’s case warranted disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer observed that section 40(a)(ia) of the Act disallows ITA No. 931/Ahd/2015 & 448/Ahd/2016 Hagglunds Drives (India) Pvt. Ltd./ Bosch Rexroth (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation and insurance expenses on motor cars held in the name of Directors. Accordingly Ground No.1 raised by the revenue in appeals for Assessment Year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands dismissed. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 54. Now we take up the issue raised

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation and insurance expenses on motor cars held in the name of Directors. Accordingly Ground No.1 raised by the revenue in appeals for Assessment Year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands dismissed. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 54. Now we take up the issue raised

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation and insurance expenses on motor cars held in the name of Directors. Accordingly Ground No.1 raised by the revenue in appeals for Assessment Year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands dismissed. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 54. Now we take up the issue raised

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation and insurance expenses on motor cars held in the name of Directors. Accordingly Ground No.1 raised by the revenue in appeals for Assessment Year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands dismissed. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 54. Now we take up the issue raised

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation and insurance expenses on motor cars held in the name of Directors. Accordingly Ground No.1 raised by the revenue in appeals for Assessment Year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands dismissed. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 54. Now we take up the issue raised

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation and insurance expenses on motor cars held in the name of Directors. Accordingly Ground No.1 raised by the revenue in appeals for Assessment Year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands dismissed. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 54. Now we take up the issue raised

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation and insurance expenses on motor cars held in the name of Directors. Accordingly Ground No.1 raised by the revenue in appeals for Assessment Year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands dismissed. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 54. Now we take up the issue raised

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

depreciation and insurance expenses on motor cars held in the name of Directors. Accordingly Ground No.1 raised by the revenue in appeals for Assessment Year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 stands dismissed. KIFS Securities Ltd & Khandwala Integrated Financial Services P. Ltd, ITA Nos.643, 2717, 2882/Ahd/14, 786, 914/Ahd/16,63,1885/Ahd/17 & 932/Ahd/2014 54. Now we take up the issue raised

SAMIR SYNTHETICS MILLS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Him.

depreciation @ 20% to the amount of Rs. 1,98,672/- was disallowed after attracting provision of section 38(2) of the Act. 7. The assesse has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal stating that assessee could not substantiate that motor car has been exclusively used for business purposes. Ground

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

194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner of the projects and the appellant was 'not owner of the projects’. The AO has held that the company is neither developing or operating or maintaining AYs2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 Ajay Engineering Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1650/Ahd/2017 Ajay Protech Private Limited

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

194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner of the projects and the appellant was 'not owner of the projects’. The AO has held that the company is neither developing or operating or maintaining AYs2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 Ajay Engineering Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1650/Ahd/2017 Ajay Protech Private Limited

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

194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner of the projects and the appellant was 'not owner of the projects’. The AO has held that the company is neither developing or operating or maintaining AYs2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 Ajay Engineering Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1650/Ahd/2017 Ajay Protech Private Limited