DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

gains from the export of articles but also the income from the business of the undertaking." In view of the aforesaid position, the appeals have to be dismissed. We order accordingly. 12. We thus find that the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Maral Overseas (supra) wherein the ratio that once on income forms part

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

gains from the export of articles but also the income from the business of the undertaking." In view of the aforesaid position, the appeals have to be dismissed. We order accordingly. 12. We thus find that the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Maral Overseas (supra) wherein the ratio that once on income forms part

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

gains from the export of articles but also the income from the business of the undertaking." In view of the aforesaid position, the appeals have to be dismissed. We order accordingly. 12. We thus find that the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Maral Overseas (supra) wherein the ratio that once on income forms part

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

gains from the export of articles but also the income from the business of the undertaking." In view of the aforesaid position, the appeals have to be dismissed. We order accordingly. 12. We thus find that the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Maral Overseas (supra) wherein the ratio that once on income forms part

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

capital gains) after 1st Oct., 2004. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and allow the claim of the assessee. 22. Respectfully following the views so taken by the coordinate bench, we uphold the plea of the assessee. The action of the Assessing Officer on this point is reversed, and the set off of loss carried forward

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

capital gains) after 1st Oct., 2004. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and allow the claim of the assessee. 22. Respectfully following the views so taken by the coordinate bench, we uphold the plea of the assessee. The action of the Assessing Officer on this point is reversed, and the set off of loss carried forward

INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

capital gains) after 1st Oct., 2004. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and allow the claim of the assessee. 22. Respectfully following the views so taken by the coordinate bench, we uphold the plea of the assessee. The action of the Assessing Officer on this point is reversed, and the set off of loss carried forward

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains have been credited to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Once such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum must necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48, which statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially inflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains have been credited to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Once such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum must necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48, which statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially inflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains have been credited to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Once such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum must necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48, which statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially inflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains have been credited to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Once such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum must necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48, which statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially inflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

DCIE CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHEMDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains have been credited to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Once such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum must necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48, which statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially inflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCE LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT, AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

capital gains have been credited to the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. Once such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum must necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48, which statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially inflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, VADODARA vs. M/S. WEB GAZER SOFTWARE COMPANY,, VADODARA

1 (SC) 4. The fact in brief for adjudication is that the assessee is partnership firm engaged in business of information technology enabled service provider and also registered under STPI Gandhinagar. For the year under consideration the assessee claimed exemption under section 10B for Rs. 39,20,823/- being 100% export oriented unit (EOU). The contention of the assessee

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED SHIVARTH AMBIT , BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

capital gains have been credited to\nthe profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act.\nOnce such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum\nmust necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48,\nwhich statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially\ninflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DEHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION- THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed

capital gains have been credited to\nthe profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act.\nOnce such gains form part of net profit, the computation of their quantum\nmust necessarily follow the computation mechanism contained in section 48,\nwhich statutorily mandates indexation. Denial of indexation would artificially\ninflate book profit and result in MAT being levied

SHRI MANAV VIKAS FOUNDATION,CHAMARAJ, TL. VADHAVAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

10B as provided for in section 12A(1)(b) is the denial of the benefit of section 11 which in the case of the appellant would be restricted to the claim u/s 11(1)(a) amounting Rs. 7,38,636/- and claim u/s 11(1)(d) being Capital expenditure amounting to Rs.3,02,379 since in the absence of being

M/S. FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE CIT-I,, BARODA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4565/Ahd/2007 – Ay 2004-05 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1529/Ahd/2009 – Ay 2005-06 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1256/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2007-08 4. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.1941/Ahd/2012 – Ay 2008-09 5. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.551/Ahd/2016 – Ay 2009-10

10B as amended w.e.f. 01-04-2001. (c) The Id. CIT(A) erred in overlooking the ratio of CIT vs Shirke Construction Equipment Pvt. Ltd. 291ITR 380 (SC), IPCA Laboratories Ltd. vs DCIT266ITR 521 (SC) and A.M. Moosavs CIT294ITR1 (SC), holding that section 80AB overrides the provisions of section 80HHC as well and hence the incomes which are deductible under