THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1),, VADODARA vs. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 211(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956, the AR further\nargued that every company is required to prepare its accounts in accordance\nwith Accounting Standards (AS) issued by ICAI. The AR relied on AS-12\n(Accounting for Government Grants), which provides that government\ngrants in the nature of promoters' contribution should be credited to capital\nreserve

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, VADODARA vs. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 211(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956, the AR further argued that every company is required to prepare its accounts in accordance with Accounting Standards (AS) issued by ICAI. The AR relied on AS-12 (Accounting for Government Grants), which provides that government grants in the nature of promoters’ contribution should be credited to capital reserve and not routed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, VADODARA vs. M/S. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 211(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956, the AR further argued that every company is required to prepare its accounts in accordance with Accounting Standards (AS) issued by ICAI. The AR relied on AS-12 (Accounting for Government Grants), which provides that government grants in the nature of promoters’ contribution should be credited to capital reserve and not routed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, VADODARA vs. M/S. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 211(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956, the AR further argued that every company is required to prepare its accounts in accordance with Accounting Standards (AS) issued by ICAI. The AR relied on AS-12 (Accounting for Government Grants), which provides that government grants in the nature of promoters’ contribution should be credited to capital reserve and not routed

M/S. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(1),, BARODA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

Section 211(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956, the AR further argued that every company is required to prepare its accounts in accordance with Accounting Standards (AS) issued by ICAI. The AR relied on AS-12 (Accounting for Government Grants), which provides that government grants in the nature of promoters’ contribution should be credited to capital reserve and not routed

THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. UTTHAN SEWA TRUST,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

211 Taxation 250 (Del) etc.. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Plot Shwetambar Murtipujak Jain Mandal has held as follows :- "A bare perusal of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, shows that the income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes to the extent to which such income

CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

211 wherein it was held as under: “7. Heard, learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) and the Tribunal. As stated by Mr. Patel, herein above, the issues involved in this matter are no more res integra and we have already decided the same

ITO(EXEMPTIONS),, AHMEDABAD vs. CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

211 wherein it was held as under: “7. Heard, learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) and the Tribunal. As stated by Mr. Patel, herein above, the issues involved in this matter are no more res integra and we have already decided the same

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

depreciation on the above (as per Para No.7) 10. Trade Mark Registration fee & Rs. 14,14,36,698 Patent Fee (as per Para No. 8) 11. Research & Development Rs. 109,74,61,000 (as per Para No. 9) 12.Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act Rs.8,05,91,640/- Rs.234,23,50,734/- (as per Para No. 10) Assessed Business Income

SHRENO LIMITED,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NOW CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Tribunal Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-2, Vadodara, Dated 19.11.2015 Passed For A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are Not In Consonance With Rule 8 Of Itat Rules, They Are Descriptive & Argumentative In Nature. In Brief, In The First Fold Of Grievance, Assessee Pleaded That The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Required To Be Made U/S. 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1962 Read With Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules. Learned Counsel For The

211 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) is applicable, shall, for the purposes of this section, prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of the Act governing such company: Provided that while preparing the annual accounts including profit and loss account, - (i) the accounting policies; (ii) the accounting standards

M/S. KALATHIA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

Section 147 have to be satisfied by the assessee and if one of them (as the case in hand) is not satisfied the assessment should give way to the re-assessment proceedings. 12. In the original assessment proceedings, the A.O. in his wisdom may have allowed the claim of depreciation but then to mitigate such revenue leakages the legislature

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

211/=. However the AO without recording his dissatisfaction issue a Show Cause Notice to the assessee to 3 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT explain as to why provisions of Rule 8D read with section 14A should not be invoked. 2.2. In response the assessee vide letters dated

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

211/=. However the AO without recording his dissatisfaction issue a Show Cause Notice to the assessee to 3 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT explain as to why provisions of Rule 8D read with section 14A should not be invoked. 2.2. In response the assessee vide letters dated

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

211/=. However the AO without recording his dissatisfaction issue a Show Cause Notice to the assessee to 3 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT explain as to why provisions of Rule 8D read with section 14A should not be invoked. 2.2. In response the assessee vide letters dated

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

211/=. However the AO without recording his dissatisfaction issue a Show Cause Notice to the assessee to 3 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT explain as to why provisions of Rule 8D read with section 14A should not be invoked. 2.2. In response the assessee vide letters dated

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Act, the twin condition of ownership and the assets used for the purpose of assessee’s business must be satisfied. 2.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.35,20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Act, the twin condition of ownership and the assets used for the purpose of assessee’s business must be satisfied. 2.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.35,20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Act, the twin condition of ownership and the assets used for the purpose of assessee’s business must be satisfied. 2.The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.35,20,002/- made by AO u/s 14A r.w.r 8D( of the Act, on account of interest expense