SAHAJANAND LASER TECHNOLOGY LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 10A of the Act is applicable to the assessee. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has given categorical finding in paragraph no.5.2 of the order that the assessee in the revised Form No.56A has taken the profit from SEZ Unit

GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPN. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

10A or section 10B or] section 11 or section 12 apply; or] [ (g) the amount of depreciation,] [if any amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED, VADODARA

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

Bench: Dr Brr Kumarshri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1596/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

10A or section 10B or] section 11 or section 12 apply; or] [ (g) the amount of depreciation,] [if any amount

ATUL LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT (OSD), RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

section 32(2) r.w.s 71 of the Act. 22. In the case of SRA systems(supra) the Hon’ble Madras high court was seized with the issue of set off of unabsorbed depreciation prior to deduction u/s 10A

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. KOTA BARAN TOLLWAY PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

depreciation. Further, it was submitted that in the case of group concern of the assessee, Chittorgarh Kota Baran Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad, similar expenditure has been allowed as revenue expenditure. The assessee further submitted that the assessee company is also eligible for claiming for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act and relied on Gujarat High Court decision

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Mahavir Prasadassessment Year : 2011-12 Ananya Finance For Inclusive The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Growth P Ltd. Ambawadi 401, Shaan, Op: M.J. Library Ahmedabad 380015. Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aahca 8023 D

depreciation against profits of MFD division. The entire transaction is ,we agree with the Revenue, nothing but a colorable device for tax evasion . 19 31. The doctrine of lifting the corporate veil in tax matters has always been judicially recognized right from the decision of the Hon’ble apex court in Mcdowell and Company Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer reported

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

depreciation on electrical items as electrical installation at the rate of 15%. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” Ground Nos. 3 to 5 : Research and Development expenses under Section 35(2AB) of the Act 3. The brief facts of the case

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1),AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under\nconsideration

depreciation on electrical items as electrical installation at the rate of\n15%.\n\nYour appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify\nall or any of the above grounds of appeal.\n\nدو\n\nGround Nos.3 to 5 : Research and Development expenses under Section\n35(2AB) of the Act\n\n3. The brief facts

ASAHI SONGWON COLORS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the grounds raised by the Assessee are hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

depreciation for Assessment Year 2008- 09 & 2009-10 wherein disallowances u/s. 14A, 10B and 80IA were made. The A.O. following the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) held that the profits eligible for deduction u/s. 10B should be derived by the undertaking from ‘exports’ of articles or things

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

depreciation, allocation of administrative and general expenses between Unit-I and Unit-II, etc. Therefore, the assessee submitted Revised COI with rectified working of deduction on multiple occasions. While completing assessment, Ld. AO allowed deduction u/s 10B as per his own working, which caused mainly following grievances to the assessee: (i) Deduction has been wrongly disallowed in respect of Misc

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MICROWAX LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

depreciation, allocation of administrative and general expenses between Unit-I and Unit-II, etc. Therefore, the assessee submitted Revised COI with rectified working of deduction on multiple occasions. While completing assessment, Ld. AO allowed deduction u/s 10B as per his own working, which caused mainly following grievances to the assessee: (i) Deduction has been wrongly disallowed in respect of Misc

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

depreciation on computers, telephone and reuters was filed. However, the basis of allocation of expenses under these heads could not be substantiated. Further, why other expenses were not to be allocated also could not be explained. It is seen that this is merely an estimated amount without any validation.” 9 Axis Bank Limited Vs. ACIT AY : 2018-19 11. Referring