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

80A(5) of the Act. 7.5 Section 80IA(7) reads as under:- “ ….. (7) [The deduction] under sub-section (1) from profits and gains derived from an [undertaking] shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the [undertaking] for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined

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

80A of the Act. Regarding this we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Metrochem Industries Ltd (supra) wherein the head note of the judgment reads as under: “I Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Profits and gains from industrial undertakings, etc., after a certain date (Computation

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. MYTRAH VAYU (GUJARAT) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

80A; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter VI-A or section 10AA, to which provisions