THE ACIT,(OSD)CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

36(l)(vii), 28(ii)(c). The phrase 'wholly and exclusively for the purposes of has been used in sections 37 and 57(iii). On going through the use of the above and other similar expressions in different parts of the Act, it is clearly borne out that these have not been used interchangeably. The Legislature is fully conscious

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 295/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 The D.C.I.T, M/S Claris Lifesciences Limited, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Claris Corporate Hq, Ahmedabad. Near Parimal Rly. Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacc6366Q

iii. CIT vs. Ace Builders Private Limited (Bombay High Court) [ 281 ITR 210] iv. DCIT vs. Himalaya Machineries Private Limited (Gujarat High Court) [88 DTR 0175] v. CIT vs. Polestar Industries (Gujarat High Court) [221 taxman 0423] vi CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Private Limited (Gauhati High Court) [262 ITR 0587] vii Komac Investments & Finance

KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

36(1)(iii) cannot go together as the same results in double taxation not permissible as per the scheme of the Act. 9. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations. and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs. 1. 58 crores was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.2.68 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs. 1. 58 crores was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.2.68 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs. 1. 58 crores was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.2.68 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs. 1. 58 crores was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.2.68 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs. 1. 58 crores was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.2.68 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs. 1. 58 crores was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.2.68 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs. 1. 58 crores was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.2.68 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

36(2) are not satisfied since the said amount of Rs. 1. 58 crores was never accounted for as income by the assessee. 4.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition to the extent of Rs.2.68 lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) despite the fact that the assessee had not deducted TDS as per section

THE JT. CIT, RANGE-8, AHMEDABAD vs. 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

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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

capital gain of survey no. 485 has been declared in return of income filled by the assessee and accordingly levied penalty on the same by Assessing officer which has been upheld by CIT Appeal. 3. The appellant also request to honourable court for condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground