THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

801A. According to the Bench, It is a settled legal position that ordinary meaning is required to be given for a word used in the Statute. Rather the Bench has said that a word used in one Statute cannot per se be imported into another. A reference of General Clauses Act, 1897 was made, but it was found that

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGG. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

801A. According to the Bench, It is a settled legal position that ordinary meaning is required to be given for a word used in the Statute. Rather the Bench has said that a word used in one Statute cannot per se be imported into another. A reference of General Clauses Act, 1897 was made, but it was found that

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

801A. According to the Bench, It is a settled legal position that ordinary meaning is required to be given for a word used in the Statute. Rather the Bench has said that a word used in one Statute cannot per se be imported into another. A reference of General Clauses Act, 1897 was made, but it was found that

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

801A. According to the Bench, It is a settled legal position that ordinary meaning is required to be given for a word used in the Statute. Rather the Bench has said that a word used in one Statute cannot per se be imported into another. A reference of General Clauses Act, 1897 was made, but it was found that

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-\n13 & 2013-14 filed by the assessee are partly allowed, while the appeal of the assessee\nfor AY 2014-15 is allowed

801A Rs.214,95,00,000/-.\n6. Additional Ground on account of corporate guarantee commission of\nRs.166,56,019/given to Bank for financial assistance to wholly owned subsidiary.\n7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax\n(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of above\nissues

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

8,15,36,38,898/-\n6. For the A.Y. 2015–16 vide order dated 03.07.2019, the Ld.\nCIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Relief was granted by treating\nsales-tax subsidy as a capital receipt, deleting disallowance of\nexcess depreciation on intangible assets, allowing product\nregistration expenses as revenue in nature, allowing deduction\nu/s 80IA of Rs.74

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

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

8 CO. No.209/Ahd/2011 AYs:2007-08 CO. No.210/Ahd/2011 & Khurana Engineering Ltd. The income on which deduction u/s. 801A has been claimed was related to the contract works executed by the assessee and was not on BOT, BOOT, or BOLT basis. Thus works carried out by the company were not as developer but as a contractor and by virtue of agreements

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

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

8 CO. No.209/Ahd/2011 AYs:2007-08 CO. No.210/Ahd/2011 & Khurana Engineering Ltd. The income on which deduction u/s. 801A has been claimed was related to the contract works executed by the assessee and was not on BOT, BOOT, or BOLT basis. Thus works carried out by the company were not as developer but as a contractor and by virtue of agreements

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

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

8 CO. No.209/Ahd/2011 AYs:2007-08 CO. No.210/Ahd/2011 & Khurana Engineering Ltd. The income on which deduction u/s. 801A has been claimed was related to the contract works executed by the assessee and was not on BOT, BOOT, or BOLT basis. Thus works carried out by the company were not as developer but as a contractor and by virtue of agreements

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

801A Rs.214,95,00,000/-. 6. Additional Ground on account of corporate guarantee commission of Rs.166,56,019/given to Bank for financial assistance to wholly owned subsidiary. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 4 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer

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

801A Rs.214,95,00,000/-. 6. Additional Ground on account of corporate guarantee commission of Rs.166,56,019/given to Bank for financial assistance to wholly owned subsidiary. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 4 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer

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

801A Rs.214,95,00,000/-. 6. Additional Ground on account of corporate guarantee commission of Rs.166,56,019/given to Bank for financial assistance to wholly owned subsidiary. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 4 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer

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

801A Rs.214,95,00,000/-. 6. Additional Ground on account of corporate guarantee commission of Rs.166,56,019/given to Bank for financial assistance to wholly owned subsidiary. Nirma Limited Vs. DCIT (Five Appeals) 4 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer

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

8,15,36,38,898/- |\n6.\nFor the A.Y. 2015–16 vide order dated 03.07.2019, the Ld.\nCIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Relief was granted by treating\nsales-tax subsidy as a capital receipt, deleting disallowance of\nexcess depreciation on intangible assets, allowing product\nregistration expenses as revenue in nature, allowing deduction\nu/s 80IA of Rs.74

DCIT CC- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED , SINDHU BHAWAN ROAD, BODAKDEV

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

801A(4) after the insertion of above explanation, the Assessee has to pass the test of "being Developer of infrastructure facilities", accordingly the Assessee was asked to prove & establish its capacity of "Developer of infrastructure facilities", accordingly the Assessee has made a detailed submission narrating the following facts & points to prove & establish its capacity as a "Developer of infrastructure facilities

DCIT CC- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED, MONTECARLO HOUSE, SINDHU BHAWA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

801A(4) after the insertion of above explanation, the Assessee has to pass the test of "being Developer of infrastructure facilities", accordingly the Assessee was asked to prove & establish its capacity of "Developer of infrastructure facilities", accordingly the Assessee has made a detailed submission narrating the following facts & points to prove & establish its capacity as a "Developer of infrastructure facilities

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

801A of the Act in respect of profit and gains derived by undertaking engaged in generation of steam amounting to Rs. 14,27,64,966/- by applying the provisions of Section 80-IA(7) of the Act and on the contention that the relevant Form 10CCB was not filed with the return of income. Additional Ground

PG FOILS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

801A of Rs.37,90,084/- claimed by appellant. 3. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 1,04,64,559/- by invoking Sec. 14A of the Act. 4. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not allowing credit

PG FOILS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

801A of Rs.37,90,084/- claimed by appellant. 3. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 1,04,64,559/- by invoking Sec. 14A of the Act. 4. The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not allowing credit