THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any eligible business , at such rates as specified in the section where the assessee develops or operates and maintains or develops , operate and maintain any infrastructure facility. The enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or(iii) developing , operating or maintaining any infrastructure facility which

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. However, as per the explanation to section 80IA of the Act, the aforesaid deduction is not allowable in relation to a business which is in the nature of ‘works contract’ awarded by any person including State or Central Government. Admittedly, the assessee is in the infrastructure development business. The assessee

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. However, as per the explanation to section 80IA of the Act, the aforesaid deduction is not allowable in relation to a business which is in the nature of ‘works contract’ awarded by any person including State or Central Government. Admittedly, the assessee is in the infrastructure development business. The assessee

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. However, as per the explanation to section 80IA of the Act, the aforesaid deduction is not allowable in relation to a business which is in the nature of ‘works contract’ awarded by any person including State or Central Government. Admittedly, the assessee is in the infrastructure development business. The assessee

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT,(OSD)-1,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. However, as per the explanation to section 80IA of the Act, the aforesaid deduction is not allowable in relation to a business which is in the nature of ‘works contract’ awarded by any person including State or Central Government. Admittedly, the assessee is in the infrastructure development business. The assessee

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT,(OSD)-1,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. However, as per the explanation to section 80IA of the Act, the aforesaid deduction is not allowable in relation to a business which is in the nature of ‘works contract’ awarded by any person including State or Central Government. Admittedly, the assessee is in the infrastructure development business. The assessee

M.S. KHURANA ENGINEERING LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. However, as per the explanation to section 80IA of the Act, the aforesaid deduction is not allowable in relation to a business which is in the nature of ‘works contract’ awarded by any person including State or Central Government. Admittedly, the assessee is in the infrastructure development business. The assessee

SKAPS INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

35D of Rs.59,38,487/- (being 1/5th of Rs.2,96,92,435/-). Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that out of total expenses of Rs.2,96,92,435/-, Rs.16,55,644/- (1/5th of Rs.82,78,218/-) is eligible u/s.35D(2) of the Act and ought to have allowed capitalization for balance Rs.2

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains from business or profession. 23.4.6. Under the above said facts and circumstance and following the above cited case laws, I am of the considered view that all the pre-requisites as established by section 37(1) are satisfied and therefore, I hold that the expenditure incurred towards the payment of consultancy fees to McKinsey & Co. are revenue in nature

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

gains from business or profession. 23.4.6. Under the above said facts and circumstance and following the above cited case laws, I am of the considered view that all the pre-requisites as established by section 37(1) are satisfied and therefore, I hold that the expenditure incurred towards the payment of consultancy fees to McKinsey & Co. are revenue in nature