THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

loss cannot set off against the normal business income. Accordingly, the A.O has disallowed Rs.14,42,91,136/-. I completely agree with the contention of the A.O. It is apparent that the books of accounts maintained by the appellant are in difference with the argument it has taken during the assessment proceedings. According to the appellant, these are financial transactions

THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1)., AHMEDABAD vs. N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

loss cannot set off against the normal business income. Accordingly, the A.O has disallowed Rs.14,42,91,136/-. I completely agree with the contention of the A.O. It is apparent that the books of accounts maintained by the appellant are in difference with the argument it has taken during the assessment proceedings. According to the appellant, these are financial transactions

N.K. INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

loss cannot set off against the normal business income. Accordingly, the A.O has disallowed Rs.14,42,91,136/-. I completely agree with the contention of the A.O. It is apparent that the books of accounts maintained by the appellant are in difference with the argument it has taken during the assessment proceedings. According to the appellant, these are financial transactions

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

loss of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- admittedly incurred on transactions that were settled without effecting delivery being speculative in nature cannot be allowed to be set off against business income. ITA Nos. 464 & 546/Ahd/2022 Assessee- NK Proteins Ltd Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 10– h. Even if the form of the transactions is taken to be financing transactions then

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

loss of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- admittedly incurred on transactions that were settled without effecting delivery being speculative in nature cannot be allowed to be set off against business income. ITA Nos. 464 & 546/Ahd/2022 Assessee- NK Proteins Ltd Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 10– h. Even if the form of the transactions is taken to be financing transactions then

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

set off of brought forward loss since those losses are already absorbed against the profits of company in earlier years. It is submitted that it be so held now. 2.4 The learned AO erred in holding that the commencement of commercial production for each well was not certified by any regulatory agency without calling for data & appreciating that there

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

set off of brought forward loss since those losses are already absorbed against the profits of company in earlier years. It is submitted that it be so held now. 2.4 The learned AO erred in holding that the commencement of commercial production for each well was not certified by any regulatory agency without calling for data & appreciating that there

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

set off of brought forward loss since those losses are already absorbed against the profits of company in earlier years. It is submitted that it be so held now. 2.4 The learned AO erred in holding that the commencement of commercial production for each well was not certified by any regulatory agency without calling for data & appreciating that there

KOTHARI BROTHERS,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2007-08

TDS. The rectification proceedings were rejected by the Assessing Officer. 7. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record along with written submissions dated 02.05.2022 filed by the partner of the assessee. The assessee submitted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed in respect of rejection of rectification application and thereby

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. AARVEE DENIMS & EXPORTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2012-13 Aarvee Denims & Exports Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) 191, Shahwadi, Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Old Octroi Naka Narol-Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aabca 6019 P Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Aarvee Denims & Exports Ahmedabad. Vs Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aabca 6019 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against Order Dated 30.3.2016 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)-1/Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1)/738/2014-15 Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. We Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

loss of earlier years and bring forward notionally even though the same were set off against other income of the assessee and the set off against the current income of the eligible business. Once the set off is taken place in earlier year against the other income of the assessee, the Revenue cannot rework the set off amount and bring

AARVEE DENIMS & EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2012-13 Aarvee Denims & Exports Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) 191, Shahwadi, Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Old Octroi Naka Narol-Sarkhej Highway Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aabca 6019 P Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Aarvee Denims & Exports Ahmedabad. Vs Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aabca 6019 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K. Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against Order Dated 30.3.2016 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)-1/Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1)/738/2014-15 Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. We Dispose Of Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

loss of earlier years and bring forward notionally even though the same were set off against other income of the assessee and the set off against the current income of the eligible business. Once the set off is taken place in earlier year against the other income of the assessee, the Revenue cannot rework the set off amount and bring

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. ( ERSTWHILE RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED),BARODA vs. THE ACIT,CENT.CIRCLE-1, BARODA

loss 3,02,66,75,122/-, the aforesaid incomes were already offered for tax and thereafter further adding the above incomes in computing the taxable income . 13. Re: Short grant of TDS Credit of Rs. 15,654/- 13.1 The Assessing Of fleer grossly erred in not all owing credit of TDS to the extent

ITO, WARD-1, PALANPUR, PALANPUR vs. GELOT AGRI EXPORTS, PALANPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions

GELOT AGRI EXPORTS,DEESA vs. ITO WD 1 PALANPUR, BANASKANTHA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions

LAKHI ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

set off of carry forward business loss has been made which resulted in arising demand. In the case of (2013) taxman.com 31 (Delhi) Court on Its Own Motion Vs. CIT, we have perused the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In response to the public litigation regarding difficulties faced by the assessee wherein regarding un-communicated intimation

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that