DUSHYANTSINH YADVENDRASINH CHUDASAMA,VADODARA vs. DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), 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:

Section 201(1) of the Act are satisfied, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall be deleted

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:

Section 201(1) of the Act are satisfied, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall be deleted

STHAPATI ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIORS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2361/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Sthapati Architecture & Dcit, बनाम/ Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 8, Vs. 502, New York Plaza, Ahmedabad. Opp. Judges Bunglow, Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs 8758 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Sakar Sharma, C.A. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Sankar, Sr. D.R.

disallowance of Rs.80000/- though appellant is not assessee in default according provisions Sthapati Architecture and Interiors Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2011-12 of sub-section (1) of section 201

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

section 201 r.w.s 195 are wholly devoid of any legally sustainable merits. 4. In view of the views so expressed by us, the assessee did not have any tax withholding obligations so far as these reimbursements are concerned. As the assessee did not have any tax withholding obligations, the very foundation of impugned disallowance

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

section 201 r.w.s 195 are wholly devoid of any legally sustainable merits. 4. In view of the views so expressed by us, the assessee did not have any tax withholding obligations so far as these reimbursements are concerned. As the assessee did not have any tax withholding obligations, the very foundation of impugned disallowance

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN GRANITO INDIA LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance of the expense is warranted under section 115BJB of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The 2nd issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT (A) erred in 8. deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 14,06,42,330/- on account of suppression of production/sales after rejecting

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN GRANITO INDIA LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance of the expense is warranted under section 115BJB of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The 2nd issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT (A) erred in 8. deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 14,06,42,330/- on account of suppression of production/sales after rejecting

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

disallowance of Rs.7,23,145 on account of provision for housekeeping expenses made by the learned Assessing Officer by invoking Section 40(a)(ia) (albeit, subject to acceptance of the respondent’s alternative Ground for not subjecting the reversal of the provision in the immediately succeeding year to tax as income). The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated, inter

RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT.,CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal ITA 2334/Ahd/2015 filed by assessee is partly allowed

disallowed by the Act. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd (supra) where it was held that debt need not be proved to be irrecoverable and it is sufficient if they are written off. The decisions in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. (supra) and Sri T. Pitamber

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

Section 201 but still no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made. Alternatively, he further

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowing the deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. 69. The learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the impugned income does not have nexus with the distribution of power activity of the assessee. Thus the learned CIT (A) upheld the finding of the AO. 70. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

section 14A held that before invoking 14A, the Assessing Officer has to record his satisfaction, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, that claim made by the assessee of an expenditure incurred in earning exempt income, or a claim that no expenditure is incurred by him in earning exempt income is not correct. It has been provided

AIA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

section 14A held that before invoking 14A, the Assessing Officer has to record his satisfaction, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, that claim made by the assessee of an expenditure incurred in earning exempt income, or a claim that no expenditure is incurred by him in earning exempt income is not correct. It has been provided

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

disallowed the said expenditure in its return of income of respective year. Thus, according to the assessee it has not claimed deduction of interest expenditure. Once it has not claimed deduction, there was no liability to deduct tax at source. Now we refer to 5 section 201

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

disallowed the expenses as discussed above due to non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(i) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT-A wherein it submitted as under: 1. There are two types of agreement, i.e., retainer ship agreement & consultancy agreement. The retainer ship

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AMOL DICALITE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 539/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1246/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, Amol Dicalite Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Akshay, 53, Ahmedabad Shirmali Society Navrangpura, Ahmedabad

disallowed the expenses as discussed above due to non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(i) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to ld. CIT-A wherein it submitted as under: 1. There are two types of agreement, i.e., retainer ship agreement & consultancy agreement. The retainer ship

ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M.S. KACHCHH STEEL PVT LTD.(NOW KNOW AS M/S. SAVANNA RESORTS PVT. LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 312/Ahd/2018 With Cross Objection No. 47/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is uncalled for in view of newly inserted proviso to section 40(a)(ia). Reliance is placed on the decision of Edeweiss Financial Advisors Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA No. 1718/Ahd/2011]. The ground of appeal is accordingly allowed.” 7. The applicability of section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 201

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. TROIKAA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 939 & 1129/Ahd/2019 With C.O.Nos.169 & 181/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Commerce House-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Rajvansh Apartment, Judges Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aabct0228K

disallowance. We uphold his action, and dismiss the grievance raised by the Assessing Officer. 5. As regards the references to Section 9(1)(vii), as made by the Assessing Officer and the learned Departmental Representative, we find that aspect of the matter is also covered, in favour of the assessee, by a large number of judicial precedents- including