SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

x 5264.79 sq. yards) and accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- in respect of undisclosed consideration on sale of land. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 27.12.2017 restored

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

24,72,950/-. The assessee has credited to profit and account by sale consideration of Rs. 6236475/-. (ii) From the assets of the balance sheet for AY 2012-13 that there was an agricultural land amounting to Rs. 1,73,25,167/- (including land purchased during the year R.S. no. 665/P/1 for Rs. 15,54,000) under the head investment

M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation on goodwill for Rs.17,27,50,337/- 4) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant

THE DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation on goodwill for Rs.17,27,50,337/- 4) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant

NIRMA LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation on goodwill for Rs.17,27,50,337/- 4) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant

JT. CTI (OSD), CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

24)(x) r.w.s.36(l)(va) of the I.T. Act. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 3 3) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of depreciation on goodwill for Rs.17,27,50,337/- 4) In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

x) of the l.T. Act, 1961. (v) In the instant case, the assessee held the amount of Rs.2,47,943/- and Rs.19,36,095/- pertaining to A.Yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively illegally for number of years and instead of refunding the ill-gotten amount to Govt. account, the assessee chose to invest the money further as mentioned supra

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

x) of the l.T. Act, 1961. (v) In the instant case, the assessee held the amount of Rs.2,47,943/- and Rs.19,36,095/- pertaining to A.Yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively illegally for number of years and instead of refunding the ill-gotten amount to Govt. account, the assessee chose to invest the money further as mentioned supra

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

x) Government grant (Assessee) ITA.Nos.2365/Ahd/2018&5 others A.Y.2013-14 24 24. The assessee during the year under consideration receives a government grant of Rs. 3,41,469/- in the Baddi unit from the Department of Biotechnology under the scheme of Biotechnology Industry Partnership Program. Such grant was received by the assessee for undertaking research in frontier futuristic technology to make

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

24-3-2008 (299 ITR (ST) 88). This notification amends the Income-tax Rules by insertion of a new Rule 8D providing for a "Method for determining amount of expenditure in relation to income not includible in total income". Reading this Rule it is evident that the Rule provides for disallowance of not only direct expenditure incurred for earning

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

x) of the Act relating to the late payment of PF/ESIC payment. The Assessing Officer assessed the income at Rs.61,61,15,800/-. The Assessing Officer also calculated MAT under Section 115JB of the Act thereby making addition of Rs.6,66,11,675/-. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act and ITA Nos.345 & 383/Ahd/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Page