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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

bogus.\nIn line with the precedent relied upon, we hold that the ad hoc\ndisallowances for both years cannot be sustained, and the same are deleted.\nAs regards the Revenue's contention that the expenditure of Rs.78,82,000/-\nin A.Y. 2013–14 is capital in nature, we observe that these costs pertain to\nsite development and soil filling, which

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

bogus.\nIn line with the precedent relied upon, we hold that the ad hoc\ndisallowances for both years cannot be sustained, and the same are deleted.\nAs regards the Revenue's contention that the expenditure of Rs.78,82,000/-\nin A.Y. 2013–14 is capital in nature, we observe that these costs pertain to\nsite development and soil filling, which

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

bogus.\nIn line with the precedent relied upon, we hold that the ad hoc\ndisallowances for both years cannot be sustained, and the same are deleted.\nAs regards the Revenue's contention that the expenditure of Rs. 78,82,000/-\nin A.Y. 2013–14 is capital in nature, we observe that these costs pertain to\nsite development and soil filling

DISHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

5A) and Form No. 3CM and come to the conclusion that a plain and harmonious reading of rule and Form clearly suggests that once facility is approved, the entire expenditure so incurred on development of "R & D" facility has to be allowed for weighted deduction as provided by section 35(2AB). The Tribunal has also considered the legislative intention behind

THE ITO, WARD-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

5A) and Form No. 3CM and come to the conclusion that a plain and harmonious reading of rule and Form clearly suggests that once facility is approved, the entire expenditure so incurred on development of "R & D" facility has to be allowed for weighted deduction as provided by section 35(2AB). The Tribunal has also considered the legislative intention behind