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

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

REAL CARGO MUMBAI,ARVALLI vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MODASA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. This Appeal In Ita No.268/Ahd/2024 For Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Filed By The Assessee Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 25.09.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 250 Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 , Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1056508501(1), Which Has In Turn Arisen From The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act 1961. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Reads As Under:-

disallowance in the case the assessee is not the one in default in light of section 201(1) squarely applies in facts of the instant case. The Revenue however opposes this contention by submitting that the second proviso is made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2013 only. Learned counsel representing assessee at this stage quotes Tribunal’s decision in Rajeev Kumar Agarwal

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.

194C of the | Act. Thus, the AO after giving the appellant an opportunity to explain and not finding explanation of the appellant satisfactory, disallowed Rs. 1,44,500/-u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added the same to the income of the appellant. During appeal proceedings, the appellant did not make any submissions on this issue. Accordingly

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

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

disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer. 12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies

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

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

disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer. 12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies

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

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

disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer. 12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies

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

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

disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer. 12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies

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

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

disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer. 12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies

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

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

disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer. 12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies

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

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

disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer. 12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies

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

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

disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer. 12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies

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

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

disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer. 12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies

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

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

disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer. 12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies

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

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

disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer. 12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies

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

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

disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer. 12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies

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

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

disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer. 12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

6 M/s. Bajaj Foods Ltd, vs. ITO 15. Ground No 2 to 2.1 are allowed for statistical purposes. 16. Ground no. 3 to 3.2, it was common ground, related to the same issue of disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 30,29,717/- invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The said ground reads as under