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, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., 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 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) vs. M/S. MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD.,

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 43(1) of the Act and found that the said explanation nowhere provides that interest pertaining to the period prior to the asset being first put to use has necessarily to be capitalised and will not be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii). Thus the remaining aspect considered by Assessing Officer regarding application of Explanation 8 as discussed

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) vs. M/S. MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD.,

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 43(1) of the Act and found that the said explanation nowhere provides that interest pertaining to the period prior to the asset being first put to use has necessarily to be capitalised and will not be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii). Thus the remaining aspect considered by Assessing Officer regarding application of Explanation 8 as discussed

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CAIRCLE-2(2) vs. M/S. MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 43(1) of the Act and found that the said explanation nowhere provides that interest pertaining to the period prior to the asset being first put to use has necessarily to be capitalised and will not be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii). Thus the remaining aspect considered by Assessing Officer regarding application of Explanation 8 as discussed

THE ACIT, CEN- CIR 2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 43(1) of the Act and found that the said explanation nowhere provides that interest pertaining to the period prior to the asset being first put to use has necessarily to be capitalised and will not be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii). Thus the remaining aspect considered by Assessing Officer regarding application of Explanation 8 as discussed

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) vs. M/S. MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 43(1) of the Act and found that the said explanation nowhere provides that interest pertaining to the period prior to the asset being first put to use has necessarily to be capitalised and will not be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii). Thus the remaining aspect considered by Assessing Officer regarding application of Explanation 8 as discussed

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

iii) On the other end, NK Corporation sells the said material to NKIL on the same day for Rs.112 and its payment is to be made after the period of settlement of T+36 transaction. iv) Thus, the goods sold by NKIL are adjusted against goods purchased from NK Corpn. Similarly, goods purchased by IBMA are adjusted against goods sold

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

iii) On the other end, NK Corporation sells the said material to NKIL on the same day for Rs.112 and its payment is to be made after the period of settlement of T+36 transaction. iv) Thus, the goods sold by NKIL are adjusted against goods purchased from NK Corpn. Similarly, goods purchased by IBMA are adjusted against goods sold

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

iii) On the other end, NK Corporation sells the said material to NKIL on the same day for Rs.112 and its payment is to be made after the period of settlement of T+36 transaction. iv) Thus, the goods sold by NKIL are adjusted against goods purchased from NK Corpn. Similarly, goods purchased by IBMA are adjusted against goods sold

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

iii) On the other end, NK Corporation sells the said material to NKIL on the same day for Rs.112 and its payment is to be made after the period of settlement of T+36 transaction. iv) Thus, the goods sold by NKIL are adjusted against goods purchased from NK Corpn. Similarly, goods purchased by IBMA are adjusted against goods sold

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii), the same is identical to Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which is decided by us. Hence, Ground No. 4 is allowed. 44. As regards Ground No. 5 of assessee’s appeal related to disallowance of Rs. 12,67,467/- on account of difference in income as per TDS certificate

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii), the same is identical to Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which is decided by us. Hence, Ground No. 4 is allowed. 44. As regards Ground No. 5 of assessee’s appeal related to disallowance of Rs. 12,67,467/- on account of difference in income as per TDS certificate

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii), the same is identical to Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which is decided by us. Hence, Ground No. 4 is allowed. 44. As regards Ground No. 5 of assessee’s appeal related to disallowance of Rs. 12,67,467/- on account of difference in income as per TDS certificate

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii), the same is identical to Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which is decided by us. Hence, Ground No. 4 is allowed. 44. As regards Ground No. 5 of assessee’s appeal related to disallowance of Rs. 12,67,467/- on account of difference in income as per TDS certificate

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii), the same is identical to Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which is decided by us. Hence, Ground No. 4 is allowed. 44. As regards Ground No. 5 of assessee’s appeal related to disallowance of Rs. 12,67,467/- on account of difference in income as per TDS certificate

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii), the same is identical to Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which is decided by us. Hence, Ground No. 4 is allowed. 44. As regards Ground No. 5 of assessee’s appeal related to disallowance of Rs. 12,67,467/- on account of difference in income as per TDS certificate

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii), the same is identical to Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which is decided by us. Hence, Ground No. 4 is allowed. 44. As regards Ground No. 5 of assessee’s appeal related to disallowance of Rs. 12,67,467/- on account of difference in income as per TDS certificate

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 36(1)(iii), the same is identical to Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 which is decided by us. Hence, Ground No. 4 is allowed. 44. As regards Ground No. 5 of assessee’s appeal related to disallowance of Rs. 12,67,467/- on account of difference in income as per TDS certificate