SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made following disallowances: - Total income as per return of income 1,27,99,512/- Add: Additions/Disallowables as discussed above 1 Disallowance u/s.10A 1,33,37,787 2 Interest Disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) 3,19,556 3 Miscellaneous Expenses 1,00,000 4 License Fee 1,23,890 5 Disallowance

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

10A(d). Thirdly, various legal precedents discussed above have permitted aggregation-theory in restricted situations and not as a matter of convenience. Page 33 of 51 ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the aggregation is not a rule of blind application, it is to be applied

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

10A(d). Thirdly, various legal precedents discussed above have permitted aggregation-theory in restricted situations and not as a matter of convenience. Page 33 of 51 ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the aggregation is not a rule of blind application, it is to be applied

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. KOTA BARAN TOLLWAY PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10A of the Act. 14. In the case of Sharavathi Pathina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha vs. ITO 144 taxmann.com 170 (Bangalore Tribunal), the ITAT held that where disallowance for non-deduction of TDS

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1),AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under\nconsideration

section 10A(2)(b) of the Act was of the general nature. Therefore,\nclaim of commission payment to the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was disallowed and\nadded to the total income of the assessee.\n\n9. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has\nrestricted the disallowance to Rs.6 lacs after deleting

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 10A(2)(b) of the Act was of the general nature. Therefore, claim of commission payment to the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 9. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to Rs. 6 lacs after

SUBHASH ISHVARBHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

TDS withheld by the US Employer was denied to the assesee was on the ground that there was a delay in filing of form No.67 by the assessee, which was required to be filed by the assessee on or before the due date of filing of return of income. We are of the considered view, that the assessee has duly