THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VODAFONE SHARED SERVICES LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR SHARED SERVICES LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

capital assets for the purposes of existing business and not for the purpose of expansion, would be allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court has after considering provisions of Explanation 8 to section 43(1) held that the said explanation is not relevant while determining deduction of interest expenditure under

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VODAFONE SHARED SERVICES LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR SHARED SERVICES LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

capital assets for the purposes of existing business and not for the purpose of expansion, would be allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court has after considering provisions of Explanation 8 to section 43(1) held that the said explanation is not relevant while determining deduction of interest expenditure under

VODAFONE BUSINESS SERVICES LIMITED ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE SHARED SERVICES LIMITED),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadsl.

capital assets for the purposes of existing business and not for the purpose of expansion, would be allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court has after considering provisions of Explanation 8 to section 43(1) held that the said explanation is not relevant while determining deduction of interest expenditure under

ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICE LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

capital gain." 3. The appeal was heard by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal on 12.09.2017 and the order was pronounced on 08.12.2017 wherein part of the aforesaid grounds of appeal were decided against the assessee. However, since some of the grounds were left to be adjudicated in the said order, the assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application before

ASIAN OILFIELD SERVICES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble&

capital gain." 3. The appeal was heard by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal on 12.09.2017 and the order was pronounced on 08.12.2017 wherein part of the aforesaid grounds of appeal were decided against the assessee. However, since some of the grounds were left to be adjudicated in the said order, the assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application before

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

32A).\nIt is also notified by the Central Government as a recognised association for the\npurposes of clause (e) of the proviso to clause (5) of the said section 43 of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with sub-rule (4) of rule 6DDD of the Income-tax Rules,\n1962. Copy of the said notification is attached

THE VARDHMAN STAMPINGS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

32A).\nIt is also notified by the Central Government as a recognised association for the\npurposes of clause (e) of the proviso to clause (5) of the said section 43 of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with sub-rule (4) of rule 6DDD of the Income-tax Rules,\n1962. Copy of the said notification is attached