ASIAN MILLS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1,,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1397/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T., 104, Sakar Iii, Vs. Range-1, Opp. Old High Court, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1531/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T., Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 104, Sakar Iii, Ahmedabad. Opp. Old High Court, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G

disallowance consist of 3 components. My findings component wise are as under: (1) Payment to transporters (Rs.2,22,48,327/-) In accordance with section 194C(6

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

disallowed for non- deduction of TDS. 4.1 Regarding the payment of freight/transport expenses pertaining to the period up to 30 September 2009 prior to the amendment of section 194C(6

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

section 194C(6) of the Act. 11. The Ld. AR further submitted that the disallowances cannot be made on account

SUMMIT (INDIA) WATER TREATMENT & SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

disallow the entire amount of Rs.2.03 crores under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 3.1.3 In this regard, we wish to submit that inter Ocean is an Indian agent acting on behalf of non-resident shipping company. The shipping company generally appoint an agent to act on their behalf for collecting freight, demurrage and other charges and reimburse

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

6 of 12 party-wise freight payment details, despite several opportunities, when the assessee’s turnover was exceeding Rs.20 crores and the assessee was well supported by qualified staff; and that thus, since the assessee had not complied with the provisions of section 194C of the Act, disallowance

SHRI MOHMED SHAKIL MOHMED SHAFI MUTWALLI,,HIMATNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SABARKANTHA WARD-3., HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance ignoring the provisions of Section 194C (6) of the Act and also ignoring the binding decision of Hon'ble Gujarat

SHRI VISHAL D PALANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, TDS-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

6. We have heard Shri Shah representing assessee and Shri Madhushudhan appearing as Senior Departmental Representative reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned disallowance. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not deducted TDS upon the freight payments in question. Both the lower authorities invoke Section 194C

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

6. We have heard Shri Shah representing assessee and Shri Madhushudhan appearing as Senior Departmental Representative reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned disallowance. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not deducted TDS upon the freight payments in question. Both the lower authorities invoke Section 194C

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE.1(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.BURT HILL DESIGN PVT. LTD.(NOW STANTEC CONSULTING PVT. LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

6 of 9 triggered by the lapses in discharging such obligations, ceases to hold good in law. We, therefore, uphold the grievance of the assessee, and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance.” 8. In view of the above discussions, we deem it fit and proper to delete the entire disallowance. The relief granted

BURT HILL DESIGN PVT. LTD. ( NOW KNOWN AS STANTEC CONSULTING PVT. LTD. ),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

6 of 9 triggered by the lapses in discharging such obligations, ceases to hold good in law. We, therefore, uphold the grievance of the assessee, and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance.” 8. In view of the above discussions, we deem it fit and proper to delete the entire disallowance. The relief granted

ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, these grounds of assessee’s appeal are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

6. We have heard learned advocate for theparties and perused the material on record. Itappears from the record that in previous yearsalso, the assessee had claimed for the benefit of Section 80-1 of the Income Tax Act and the samewas granted to the assessee. Further, it appearsthat before the Assessing Officer, the assessee also ascertained the aforesaid fact, which

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

6) is applicable was not found acceptable by the Ld. AO. Finally relying on Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act owing to non-compliance of the provision of Section 194C the said amount of expenses of Rs. 37,73,063/- was added to the total income of the assessee by the Ld. AO which was, in turn, deleted

ITO, WARD-2(1) (1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. EYLEX FILMS PVT. LTD., RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance of Rs.4,76,27,714/- towards the payment made by the appellant for purchase of the films from the distributors invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stating that the appellant has not made the TDS on the aforesaid payments and hence it has violated the provisions of Section 194J

ITO, WARD-2(1) (1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. EYLEX FILMS PVT. LTD., RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance of Rs.4,76,27,714/- towards the payment made by the appellant for purchase of the films from the distributors invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act stating that the appellant has not made the TDS on the aforesaid payments and hence it has violated the provisions of Section 194J

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

section 80 of the Companies Act, 1956 and observed that first proviso to this section provided that “no such shares shall be redeemed except out of profits of the company which would otherwise be available for dividend or out of the proceeds of a fresh issue of shares made for the purposes of the redemption”. Thus, according to the ld.CIT