THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

66,85,957 Average CWIP Funds (C) 3,65,68,91,720 Proportionate Interest Disallowance (B × C) ÷ A Amount Disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 11,29,21,996 ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 43 80. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the disallowance was unjustified and that it had substantial interest-free funds available throughout the year

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

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

66,85,957 Average CWIP Funds (C) 3,65,68,91,720 Proportionate Interest Disallowance (B × C) ÷ A Amount Disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) Rs. 11,29,21,996 ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 43 80. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the disallowance was unjustified and that it had substantial interest-free funds available throughout the year

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

1, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:- “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,09,66,000/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B from the commission paid

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

1, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:- “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,09,66,000/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B from the commission paid

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

1, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:- “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,09,66,000/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B from the commission paid

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

1, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:- “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,09,66,000/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B from the commission paid

GUJARAT GAS TRADIANG CO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

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

1, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:- “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,09,66,000/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B from the commission paid

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT GAS TRADING CO. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

1, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:- “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,09,66,000/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) r.w.s. 195 of the Act, for failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B from the commission paid

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INDO COLCHEM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for any payments made to such non-resident agents without deduction of tax at source. Learned representatives, however, fairly agree, even as learned Departmental Representative dutifully relies upon the stand of the authorities below, that this issue is now covered by a coordinate bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT

M/S. INOX INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

disallowance as per the provisions of the law. 4. The assessee is aggrieved by the order so framed by the Pri. CIT and is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. 6. We find that, as learned

KARNAVATI ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for any payments made to such non- resident agents without deduction of tax at source. Learned representatives, however, fairly agree, even as learned Departmental Representative dutifully relies upon the stand of the authorities below, that this issue is now covered by a coordinate bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. INDO COLCHEM PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

1. By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of the learned CIT(A)’s order dated 15th May 2017, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The Assessing Officer has raised following grievance:- “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

66 taxmann.com 321 (Madras)], wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the assessee/respondent is that the agency commission/sales commission paid by the assessee to non-resident agents, for the services rendered by them, outside India, in procuring export orders for the assessee, would not attract or partake the character

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BARODA vs. INOX INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

66 taxmann.com 321 (Madras)], wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the assessee/respondent is that the agency commission/sales commission paid by the assessee to non-resident agents, for the services rendered by them, outside India, in procuring export orders for the assessee, would not attract or partake the character

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. ASTRAL PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES,, BARODA

In the result, appeal, the appeal and cross-objection, both are dismissed

Bench: The Ao U/S 195(2) Of The Act, Though It Was Obligation Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Itself Has Deducted Service Tax From The Payments Made To M/S. Urja International, Usa Which Proves That The

disallowing the commission payments made abroad on the ground that no TDS was deducted. In view of the various case laws mentioned supra and respectfully following them, I am of the considered view that the claim of the Appellant is in accordance with law. Some other recent decisions which are directly on the issue of sales commission to non-residents

M/S. PANASONIC ENERGY INDIA CO.LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 4,22,965 u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. 6. The learned CIT erred in fact and in law in not appreciating the fact that there was no absolute failure in deducting tax and therefore provision of section 40(a(i) could not be invoked. 7. The learned CIT erred in fact

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. ASTRAL PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES,, BARODA

In the result, appeal, the appeal and cross-objection, both are dismissed

Bench: The Ao U/S 195(2) Of The Act, Though It Was Obligation Of The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Itself Has Deducted Service Tax

disallowing the commission payments made abroad on the ground that no TDS was deducted. In view of the various case laws mentioned supra and respectfully following them, I am of the considered view that the claim of the Appellant is in accordance with law. Some other recent decisions which are directly on the issue of sales commission to non-residents

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

disallowance under section 14A was squarely covered by Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178/283 Taxman 178/438 ITR 1/ [2021] 10 SCC 153 wherein it was held that since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments in tax-free securities, investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee