THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

TDS certificate issued by the Executive Engineer. The assessee has raised RA bills, contractor & construction work bills for the activities undertaken by it at the part rate as agreed by in the tender and work contract & collected the payment for the same. g. The receipt of payment u/s.194C itself clearly indicates that the assessee company has acted as a contractor

KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.(OSD),CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

TDS certificate issued by the Executive Engineer. The assessee has raised RA bills, contractor & construction work bills for the activities undertaken by it at the part rate as agreed by in the tender and work contract & collected the payment for the same. g. The receipt of payment u/s.194C itself clearly indicates that the assessee company has acted as a contractor

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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS claimed. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,66,007/- towards late payment of employees contribution to the PF which is not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,69,92,471/- relating to booking of bogus expenses thereby observing that the assessee was not able to produce confirmation from

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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS claimed. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,66,007/- towards late payment of employees contribution to the PF which is not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,69,92,471/- relating to booking of bogus expenses thereby observing that the assessee was not able to produce confirmation from

THE JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ELECTROTHERM (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

35D of the Act in the year under consideration amounting to Rs. 3,63,06,857/- relates to the expenses incurred in the earlier years which were admitted as deferred revenue expenses in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the learned AR contended that the question of allowability of such expenses cannot arise

ELECTROTHERM (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

35D of the Act in the year under consideration amounting to Rs. 3,63,06,857/- relates to the expenses incurred in the earlier years which were admitted as deferred revenue expenses in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the learned AR contended that the question of allowability of such expenses cannot arise

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

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 CIT (A), the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. ORG INFORMATICS LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2008-09

TDS and Rs.3,30,36,346/- claimed as deduction on issue expenses of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB) claimed as deduction. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite