THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

bogus. The Tribunal committed no error so as to give rise to any question of law. The Tribunal looking to the material retained 5 per cent of the purchase by giving cogent reasons.[Paras 10 & 11] In the instant case, though it may appear that the purchases have been shown to have been made through 'V but supplied by some

M/S. GSP CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

36,442/- under section 35(2AB) of the Act on account of in-house research and development activity carried out by it. The assessee was entitled to claim deduction of 200% of the expenditure incurred on account of the said activity both under the revenue head and capital head, and accordingly, the assessee has claimed deduction under section

M/S. GSP CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

36,442/- under section 35(2AB) of the Act on account of in-house research and development activity carried out by it. The assessee was entitled to claim deduction of 200% of the expenditure incurred on account of the said activity both under the revenue head and capital head, and accordingly, the assessee has claimed deduction under section

BHAGAT MARKETING PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, in light of the above observations and the judicial precedents on the subject, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus purchases in accordance with law and thus revision under section. 263 is nothing but a change of opinion and hence order u/s. 263 is bad in law. 2. The directions given to AO in para 7, 7.1 and 8 of order under section 263 by the ld. Pr.CIT are already carried

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

purchase\nexpenses.\n67. ISSUE NO.4 REGARDING TREATMENT OF ALLEGED BOGUS\nSUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 69A AND 69C OF\nTHE ACT AND CHARGING THE SAME AT THE RATE SPECIFIED\nIN TERMS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT.\n68. The next issue being taken for consideration is the\ntreatment of the alleged bogus sub-contract expenses as deemed\nincome

THE DY. CIT, (OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KINTECH SYNERGY PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. Grievances raised in the appals, which are common but for amounts involved, are as follows :- ITA Nos.2377 & 2378/Ahd/2015 C.O. Nos.186 & 187/Ahd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page 2 of 5 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

THE DY. CIT, (OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KINTECH SYNERGY PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. Grievances raised in the appals, which are common but for amounts involved, are as follows :- ITA Nos.2377 & 2378/Ahd/2015 C.O. Nos.186 & 187/Ahd/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Page 2 of 5 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

36(1)(iii) would cease to exist, since there would\nbe no continuing diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. In\nthat event, the disallowances made for the impugned years would not\nsurvive and shall be deleted. Conversely, if it is established that the\namounts had no business nexus and continued to remain diverted for non-\nbusiness purposes

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

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

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

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

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

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

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

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

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

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

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

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

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

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

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

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

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

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

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

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

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

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

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

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

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

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

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases

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

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

Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases