DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

disallowed the entire amount under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to deduct TDS on these payments, as required under Section 194A of the Act. The details of such amounts are: Name of Lender(s) Interest Paid (Rs.) Smt. Anshyaba B. Chudasama 1

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts were provided to entire AO and appellant had opted to suo moto disallowance the entitle expenditure of that division viz Rs. 1,56,62,600 U/s. 14A while

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts were provided to entire AO and appellant had opted to suo moto disallowance the entitle expenditure of that division viz Rs. 1,56,62,600 U/s. 14A while

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts were provided to entire AO and appellant had opted to suo moto disallowance the entitle expenditure of that division viz Rs. 1,56,62,600 U/s. 14A while

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts were provided to entire AO and appellant had opted to suo moto disallowance the entitle expenditure of that division viz Rs. 1,56,62,600 U/s. 14A while

THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts were provided to entire AO and appellant had opted to suo moto disallowance the entitle expenditure of that division viz Rs. 1,56,62,600 U/s. 14A while

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

disallowance U/s. 14A instead of deleting entire disallowance made by AO as appellant had a separate "Investment Division" for which separate books of account were maintained and audited, copies of such accounts were provided to entire AO and appellant had opted to suo moto disallowance the entitle expenditure of that division viz Rs. 1,56,62,600 U/s. 14A while

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

1) of the Act the assessee was under obligation to deduct tax either at the time of credit. The A.O. has held that assessee is factually incorrect and the section 194A(3) of the Act does not apply in the case of the assessee, Hence, the case of the assessee is clearly covered under the provisions of section

NIMBESHWAR GUDADRAM DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY CIRCLE-3(3)), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

194A. In response to notice, the assessee admitted that TDS had not been deducted on such payments, on the ground that he was under the belief that TDS was not applicable in the case of NBFCs. The Assessing Officer held that the failure to deduct tax attracted disallowance of 30% of the expenditure under section

SABRI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1019/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Sabri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ A/2/236, Gidc, Nandesari, Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Baroda – 391 340. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 9406 K .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

section 37(1) of the Act in the subsequent year. The argument of the ld. AR for the assessee that there was no claim in the subsequent year for such expenses has not been challenged. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee in the subsequent year for such expenses as per the provisions

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ( SINCE MERGED WITH ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1,18,73,028/- under data processing equipments. 7.4. We also note that the appeal was filed by the Revenue and the onus was on it to high lights the infirmities in the order of the ld. CIT-A but the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue failed to do so. In holding so we draw support

M/S. DRAIPL-MSKEL(JV),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2007-08 Draipl-Kskel (Jv) Ito, Ward-9(2) 2Nd Floor, “Msk” Vs. Ahmedabad. Passport Office To Panjarapole Rd. Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaaad 3825 B (Applicant) (Responent)

1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of both additions. After issuing show cause and considering the assessee’s replies dated 06.07.2010 and 29.02.2012, the AO levied minimum penalty of Rs.87,36,356/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. During the course of penalty proceedings on disallowance under section 80IA(4) the AO held

AQUAFIL POLYMERS CO.PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

194A ways that tax should be deducted at the time of payment or credit, whichever is earlier, the company firmly believes that when the liability is not certain, there will not arise any liability of TDS. Further, the company has not claimed any expenditure towards interest in the return of income. (UNQUOTE) 4 Again in the post survey inquiry

BACKBONE TARMET NG JV,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

194A on such interest expenses. The AO accordingly invoked the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed the expenses. 11. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Lankmark Township (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT 279 CTR 384 (Delhi) which hold that

THE ITO,PATAN WARD-3,, MEHSANA vs. M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK TRANSPORT, MEHSANA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2008-09

1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,29,171/-made by the AO u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non deduction of TDS on interest paid by the assessee. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Him.

disallowance of interest of Rs. 5,51,159/- on car loan and amount of Rs. 1,83,297/- paid to M/s. Naveen Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. as handling charges on which no TDS was deducted. In respect of car loan interest of Rs. 5,51,159/-, the ld. counsel contended that this interest charges being paid to NBFC

AQUAFIL POLYMERS CO.PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

194A ways that tax should be deducted at the time of payment or credit, whichever is earlier, the company firmly believes that when the liability is not certain, there will not arise any liability of TDS. Further, the company has not claimed any expenditure towards interest in the return of income. (UNQUOTE) Again in the post survey inquiry the Appellant

M/S. BAJAJ FOODS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 194A of the Act also. Our attention was drawn to the relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) for assessment year 2012-13 , copy of which was placed as Annexure-G before us, as under: 5.2 Decision: I have gone through the facts mentioned in the assessment order and the submission filed by the appellant. My predecessor in appellant

GLOBAL FABRICS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13

194A on receipt of prescribed form, the mischief provided under section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted. 12. We find that no default can be said to have occurred in terms of the phraseology provided under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the facts of the case. Accordingly, we hold that the CIT(A) rightly cancelled the disallowance