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

TDS under section 195 read with section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 18. At the outset, we note that the issue raised is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA 539/Ahd/2018 which we have decided against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee vide Paragraph No. 14 of this order. Therefore respectfully following the same

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

TDS under section 195 read with section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 18. At the outset, we note that the issue raised is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA 539/Ahd/2018 which we have decided against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee vide Paragraph No. 14 of this order. Therefore respectfully following the same

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS under section 195 read with section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 18. At the outset, we note that the issue raised is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA 539/Ahd/2018 which we have decided against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee vide Paragraph No. 14 of this order. Therefore respectfully following the same

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS under section 195 read with section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 18. At the outset, we note that the issue raised is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA 539/Ahd/2018 which we have decided against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee vide Paragraph No. 14 of this order. Therefore respectfully following the same

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first appellate

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first appellate

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first appellate

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

iia). The claim of an amount of Rs.2,28,105/- as deduction being loss on sale/write off of asset has also been denied on the premise that once the proviso of section 2(15) is applicable to the assessee, benefit u/s 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. The addition / rejection of above claim in turn was deleted by the first appellate

M/S. ROQUETTE INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

32(1) (iia) and 15% of investment allowance u/s 32AC of the IT Act claimed b y you for these machineries were not allowable." The assessee vide this notice was informed that in case of non-compliance, the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act will be finalized on the basis of materials available on record and on merits. The notice

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) of the Act depreciation is allowable if the machinery is owned wholly and partly by the assessee, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further enlarged this scope of word "own" in its judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the provisions should be so interpreted

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) of the Act depreciation is allowable if the machinery is owned wholly and partly by the assessee, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further enlarged this scope of word "own" in its judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the provisions should be so interpreted

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) of the Act depreciation is allowable if the machinery is owned wholly and partly by the assessee, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further enlarged this scope of word "own" in its judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the provisions should be so interpreted

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) of the Act depreciation is allowable if the machinery is owned wholly and partly by the assessee, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further enlarged this scope of word "own" in its judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the provisions should be so interpreted

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) of the Act depreciation is allowable if the machinery is owned wholly and partly by the assessee, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further enlarged this scope of word "own" in its judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the provisions should be so interpreted

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) of the Act depreciation is allowable if the machinery is owned wholly and partly by the assessee, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further enlarged this scope of word "own" in its judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the provisions should be so interpreted

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) of the Act depreciation is allowable if the machinery is owned wholly and partly by the assessee, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further enlarged this scope of word "own" in its judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the provisions should be so interpreted

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

32(1) of the Act depreciation is allowable if the machinery is owned wholly and partly by the assessee, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further enlarged this scope of word "own" in its judgment rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the provisions should be so interpreted

DWARKES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Dwarkesh Infrastructure P.Ltd. Dcit, Panjrapole Ahmedabad. S/1, Neelkanth Apartments Vs. B/H. Vishramnagar Memnagar, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaccd 0020 C

section 37 relates to quantification of the expenditure, while expression “exclusively” refers to the motive, objects and purpose of the expenditure. If we make an analysis of the record, then it would reveal that the assessee has demonstrated the incurrence of the above expenditure for the purpose of business. It has submitted contract details from AUDA or AMC how these