JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects

SHRI RAVINDRASINH N.GOHIL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-1(1),, BHAVNAGAR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

bogus transactions" in the information given by the directorate. If the assessee was a beneficiary of such a scam, the income was indeed to have been taxed in its hands but then in the case before us the only reason for reassessment proceedings was the fact of deposit of bank account which by itself does not lead to income being

SHRI RAVINDRASINH N.GOHIL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-1(1),, BHAVNAGAR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

bogus transactions" in the information given by the directorate. If the assessee was a beneficiary of such a scam, the income was indeed to have been taxed in its hands but then in the case before us the only reason for reassessment proceedings was the fact of deposit of bank account which by itself does not lead to income being

SHRI RATNESH METAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

purchase @ 9.70%. Still aggrieved, the assessee is now before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before the Revenue authorities, while, the ld. DR supported orders of the Revenue authorities. 8. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. We find that the during the appellate proceedings

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

bogus other than the statement. 18.7. It is also important to note that the statement furnished under section 131 of the Act dated 8-11-2011 was retracted by way of filing an affidavit dated 11-11-2011 immediately after 3 days. III. Whether the SUN BVI is a paper company i) There is no doubt that BVI was registered

SHRI MUKESH R.SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Suchitra Kambleasstt Year - 2001-02

154 of the Act dated 12.2.2008. Both these orders of the AO were upheld by the CIT(A), against which the ITA No.736/Ahd/2005 and 6 Others Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah and Another Vs. ACIT 3 assessee has come up in appeal before us in ITANo.2043/Ahd/2010 and ITA No. 3331/Ahd/2010. Therefore, to put briefly, out of five appeals filed

SHRI MUKESH R.SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENT.WARD-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Suchitra Kambleasstt Year - 2001-02

154 of the Act dated 12.2.2008. Both these orders of the AO were upheld by the CIT(A), against which the ITA No.736/Ahd/2005 and 6 Others Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah and Another Vs. ACIT 3 assessee has come up in appeal before us in ITANo.2043/Ahd/2010 and ITA No. 3331/Ahd/2010. Therefore, to put briefly, out of five appeals filed

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENT.WARD-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Suchitra Kambleasstt Year - 2001-02

154 of the Act dated 12.2.2008. Both these orders of the AO were upheld by the CIT(A), against which the ITA No.736/Ahd/2005 and 6 Others Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah and Another Vs. ACIT 3 assessee has come up in appeal before us in ITANo.2043/Ahd/2010 and ITA No. 3331/Ahd/2010. Therefore, to put briefly, out of five appeals filed