PIYUSHKUMAR P PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(2), VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

TDS of Rs. 2,16,750/- on delayed interest on compensation towards land acquisition by Sardar Sarovar Nigam Ltd. the interest of Rs. 22,45,995/- was not included in the return nor he had applied for spread over of interest over years. Hence, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 22,45,995/- on account of interest on enhanced

SARANADHAR UMASHANKAR GUPTA,PALANPUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, PALANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, and why their gross profit should not be estimated at 20.97% (as in the previous year, Assessment Year 2016-17). In reply, the assessee submitted the assessee hired local villagers for supervision of machinery such as tractors, trolleys, and JCBs used in road construction and maintenance. The assessee submitted that these workers

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 145A and the assessee has to follow “Inclusive Method” of accounting. There is no impact on profitability whether the assessee followed “Exclusive Method” or “Inclusive Method”. It is a prerogative of the assessee in the business parlance that the assessee has followed the same method. Thus, the CIT(A) rightly delete the said addition. There is no need

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals being IT(SS)A No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

TDS at Rs. 1,46,141/- and addition in respect of bad debt of Rs. 10,60,667/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). After giving effect to CIT(A) order total income was reduced to Rs. nil after setting off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,06,93,299/-. 3.3 The case of the assessee